PREET KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that a substantive vacancy on class-IV post in the institution namely, Gram Vidyapeeth Inter College, Garkhera, Varanasi, which is duly aided and recognized, fell vacant on account of superannuation of one Sambhu Nath Upadyyaya. Principal of the institution vide letter dated 4.6.2007 requested the District Inspector of Schools for according approval for initiating the selection process to fill up the vacancy. Despite intimation by the Principal, when no action was taken by the District Inspector of Schools the vacancy was duly advertised in two daily newspapers. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner alongwith others applied. Selection committee selected the petitioner for appointment. The papers with regard to the selection of the petitioner were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools alongwith letter dated 15.7.1997 for according financial approval. When no action was taken by the District Inspector of Schools despite reminders and letters by the petitioner he approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 40695 of 1999 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2000 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate decision within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Vide order dated 6.4.2004 the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 18337 of 2004. The said writ petition was filed on the allegation that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools without any notice and opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2004 with the direction that in case the petitioner appears and applies before the District Inspector of Schools for rehearing the matter, he shall fix a date and after notice to the Principal of the College shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law. The District Inspector of Schools after reconsidering the matter vide order dated 8.12.2004 accorded approval to the appointment and payment of salary to the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Principal of the Institution issued a letter dated 1.1.2005, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner joined the post. The Principal also sent a letter to the State Bank of India for opening a savings bank account in the name of the petitioner for payment of salary. Despite joining the post, when the petitioner was not paid salary for a long period on account of some dispute that the petitioner was not making signature in the attendance register and not attending the duty, he again approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 64064 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 3.10.2005 with the direction to the Authorised Controller, who was functioning in place of the management, to place entire documents pertaining to the claim of the petitioner before the District inspector of Schools within three weeks and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The District Inspector of Schools instead of deciding the dispute himself, as directed by this Court, vide letter dated 30.11.2005 referred the matter to the Director of Education. Again the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 37096 of 2006 wherein a direction was issued to the respondent No. 2 Director to decide the dispute by means of a reasoned and speaking order. Joint Director of Education vide order dated 13.8.2008 impugned in this petition rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Regulation 101 of Chapter III framed under 1921 Act as prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools was not obtained before proceeding to issue the advertisement and initiate the selection process.

(3.) It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Joint Director of Education has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on a substantive vacancy on account of retirement of the incumbent after due advertisement in two newspapers by a validly constituted selection committee but has disapproved the same only the ground that prior approval from the District Inspector of School was not obtained before initiating the selection process.