AJAI RISAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 5, Sri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the opposite party No.6 and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (S.C.E.R.T.), Lucknow, the opposite party No.2, addressing to the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow (in short D.I.O.S.), which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby it has been directed that the petitioner be permitted to submit his joining at Christian College of Physical Education, Golaganj, Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the Institution) and he be paid salary strictly in accordance with law. However, by means of the subsequent order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the opposite party No.2 addressing to the D.I.O.S., which is contained as Annexure No.23 to the writ petition, it has been categorically indicated that in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed directing that the petitioner be permitted to submit his joining on the post of Officiating Principal and he be paid salary strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) The combined reading of Annexure No.1 and Annexure No.23 of the writ petition, which are orders dated 28.02.2020 and 03.03.2020, passed by the same authority i.e. the opposite party No.2 addressing to the same authority i.e. the D.I.O.S., Lucknow the simple direction has been issued to permit the petitioner to submit his joining on the post of officiating Principal in the Institution in question and the petitioner be paid salary and other benefits. Therefore, this court is unable to comprehend as to why the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), as it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. This Court on the first date of admission on 16.06.2020 had however asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to justify for issuance of these two orders within a gap of 2-3 days but the same could not be clarified and even by filing counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit this has not been explained properly.