RAKESH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first writ petition has been filed by Sri Rakesh Chandra Pandey (R.C. Pandey) and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Misra (A.K. Misra) and the second writ petition has been filed by R.C. Pandey alone. In the second writ petition (of 1997) R.C. Pandey has challenged the order passed by DIGS dated 2.5.1997. It is not clear as to whether Sri A.K. Misra also filed writ petition against the said order dated 2.5.1977 passed by DIGS as it affected both of them, or not?

(2.) PETITIONERS claimed that they had validly been selected and appointed as LT. Grade Teachers by Committee of Management of Sri Dandi Swami Keshava Asharam Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalay. Gunai Gaharpur, Tehsil Meja: Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) on 3.6.1989 under Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners further claimed that their ad hoc appointment was approved by DIGS on 23/30.10.1989. The Institution was brought on grant -in -aid list on 1.4.1996 and in the list of valid Teachers, submitted by Principal after the Institution was brought on grant -in -aid list, names of both the petitioners were mentioned while in the similar list submitted by the Manager of Committee of Management Sri Triveni Prasad, their names were omitted. Petitioners and two others filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 3903 of 1997 which was decided on 4.2.1997 and DIGS was directed to decide the matter. DIGS in pursuance of the said order decided that matter by order dated 2.5.1997, holding that the appointment of petitioners was illegal and that it had never been approved by DIGS. The signatures of DIGS on the alleged approval order were forged. The DIGS further held that in any case appointment had not been made by validly appointed Manager of Committee of Management. According to the petitioners their appointment was made by Sawitri Pandey who was validly appointed and recognized Manager of Committee of Management from 1986 till 1992.

(3.) PETITIONERS had claimed parity with one Sri Shiv Shankar Yadav who appears to have been appointed by Sawitri Pandey the alleged Manager around the same period when petitioners claimed to have been appointed. The Joint Director of Education has rightly held in this regard that Shiv Shankar was appointed on Class IV post for which Appointing Authority is Principal, hence, dispute of Management has got no concern with such appointments.