LALLAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-5-1984 as also the order of respondent No. 3, the Committee of Management, Janta Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bargawan-Kooban, District Mirzapur dated 3-10-1988. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular Class IV employee of the institution and pay him salary accordingly.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of this case are that respondent No. 3 institution was duly recognized and aided upto Junior High School. In the year 1984 it was accorded recognition as High School but the High School section remained unaided by the Government. Admittedly, there were only three Class IV posts sanctioned till it was a recognized institution as Junior High School and after 1984 three extra posts of Class IV were sanctioned though not under the grant in aid scheme of the Government. Thus the total sanctioned post of Class IV became six in number. In pursuance of the sanction of additional three posts, the respondent institution initially appointed two persons on Class IV posts namely Nirbhay Singh (respondent No. 5) and Bachan Lal Singh (respondent No. 6) on 4-4-1984. Thereafter, by order dated 25- 4-1984, the petitioner had been appointed on the third post. A true copy of the appointment letter has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which goes to show that the appointment was purely temporary and terminable on one month's notice. The papers relating to the appointments of three subsequent persons on Class IV posts had been forwarded by the management to the District Inspector of Schools for its approval, who vide order dated 31-5-1984 continued the approval of the three Class IV employee who were already working in the Junior High School Section but refused to grant approval to the new appointments of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and the petitioner on the ground that under the reservation policy, appointment of scheduled caste had to be made. Accordingly, the respondent institution appointed one Arjun Ram (respondent No. 4) in place of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 3-10- 1988 the services of the petitioner is said to have been terminated by the respondent institution on the ground that as per reservation policy and the order dated 31-5-1984 of the District Inspector of Schools, one scheduled caste person had to be appointed and as such in place of the petitioner one Arjun Ram had been appointed for which due approval had already been given by the District Inspector of Schools on 16-6-1984. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-5-1984 refusing to grant approval and also of the institution dated 3-10-1988, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI N. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has submitted that even if the roster was applicable then also it would be the petitioner Lallan Singh, who was admittedly appointed last, had to go.