HARI KRISHAN TIWARI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the DIOS, Allahabad appended as Annexure 13 to the petition, by which he refused to grant financial approval to the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid order and further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary as well as current salary and not to interfere in his working as lecturer in English.

(3.) The facts as appear from the writ petition, are that petitioner claims that a post of lecturer in English fell vacant due to resignation of Sri Badri Narain Mehrotra; that committee of management vide its resolution dated 1.6.1997 resolved to fill up in the post of lecturer in English, regarding which information had been sent to the D.I.O.S. and Adhyachan had been submitted; that post was accordingly advertised in "Rashtriya Sahara" and "Northern India Patrika" on 1.6.1997 after due information to the DIOS and U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission; that selection committee was constituted on 7.6.1997, in which the petitioner claims to have been selected on the basis of quality point marks; that appointment letter dated 23.6.1997 was consequently issued appointing him as lecturer in English in the pay scale of Rs. 1600 -2660 till a regularly selected candidate by the commission joins the post and information in this regard was also submitted by Manager of the institution to the DIOS vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined the institution on 1.7.1997 and all the relevant papers of appointment were sent by the committee of management to the DIOS for grant of approval and financial sanction. When no response was received from Lekhadhikari/Accounts Officer in the office of DIOS., reminders were sent by the Manager of the institution on 7.10.1997. However, inspite of the reminders sent, neither salary was paid to the petitioner nor financial approval was accorded by the office of DIOS which compelled the petitioner to move the DIOS by means of representations dated 10.10.1997 and 14.10.1997 which remained unactioned. In the meantime, he claims to have been performing his duties and taking classes of the student. Manager of the institution thereafter sent another letter dated 21.10.1997 to the DIOS, who instead of deciding his representation, rejected financial sanction on the sole ground that committee of management had no power to appoint the petitioner, as such he is not entitled to payment of salary.