INDU KUMARI SINGH Vs. BASIC SIKSHA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELYING upon the order contained in letter dated 28 -6 -1988, issued by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Jaunpur (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the appointment order dated 30 -6 -1988 (Annexure A to the writ petition), as also the order contained in letter dated 2 -3 -1989 written by Lekha Adhikari, Office of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3 -5 -1989 whereby the transfer of a sum of Rs. 3,490.50 : per cheque 719170, to the Account of the petitioner was stayed by Basic Adhikari and also for a writ of mandamus. commending the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis as and when it falls due. Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Upadhiya, who has moved an application on behalf of Smt. Sharda Singh, Head Mistress of the Institution for being impleaded as a party in the array of respondents in the aforesaid petition alongwith counter affidavit filed on behalf of the aforesaid Smt. Sharda Singh. An order contained in the letter dated 22 -4 -1989 passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the aforesaid application on behalf of Smt. Sharda Singh. From this order, it appears that there is a dispute regarding the factum of selection and appointment of the petitioner as such. From a perusal of the material on record, it appears that Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in seized of the matter as would also be clear from the order contained in the letter dated 22 -4 -1989. It is in this background that I feel the relief's as prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioner unless and until the factum of selection and appointment of the petitioner is finally adjudicated upon in tune with the principles of natural justice.

(2.) IN the above context, I feel, it is necessary to issue a direction to the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (respondent No. 1) to decide the controversy given rise to in the letter dated 22 -4 -1989 (annexure 3 to the counter affidavit) within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if it is found out that the petitioner was validly selected and appointed after due approval as envisaged by the relevant rules, she shall be paid her salary in accordance with law. In case, it transpires that the selection and appointment of the petitioner were the result born of some manipulation of fund etc. then in that event, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary.