BRIJESH TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 2.2.2010, passed by opposite party no.3, Government Order dated 15.10.2205 and consequential circular letter dated 9.11.2009, issued by Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Faizabad region, Faizabad, as contained in Annexure No.1 2 and 3 respectively. Moreover, a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to pay salaries to the petitioner as Headmaster of Sarinath Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Junior High School), Redigarapur, Patti, District Pratapgarh along with the arrears of the same with effect from 25.01.2010 and further commanding opposite parties to adhere to the prescriptions made in the government order no.3143 (1)/5.6.2001 dated 24.11.2001, as contained in Annexure No.13.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, admittedly, the Institution was recognized as Junior High School, which is opposite party no.4 and the petitioner was posted as Headmaster which fell vacant due to retirement on 30.06.2009. Consequently, the Management of the Institution sent a letter dated 14.04.2009 to opposite party no.3 for according permission for advertising the said post through direct recruitment which is contained as Annexure No.4; on 24.10.2009 the opposite party no.3 accepted the said request and consequently advertisement was published to which eight candidates applied including the petitioner. The opposite party no.3 vide order dated 10.12.2009 appointed Assistant Basic Education Officer as member of selection committee so constituted upon selection the petitioner was selected on the basis of interview dated 13.12.2009. The opposite party no.4 wrote to opposite party no.3 for according permission to the selection vide letter dated 15.12.2009 but the opposite party no.3 did not intimate his decision of approval. The opposite party no.4 decided in its meeting dated 20.01.2010 that in the interest of the Institution the approval is deemed to have been accorded by the Basic Education Officer and accordingly the petitioner was issued an appointment letter. The petitioner joined as Headmaster on 25.01.2010. Thereupon the opposite party no.3 passed the impugned order dated 2.2.2010 canceling his earlier order dated 24.10.2009 in an arbitrary manner.

(3.) Among the disputed facts, the petitioner claimed that Government order dated 24.10.2009 is not applicable as Institution is not receiving grant-in-aid for High School and Intermediate Sections. The petitioner had challenged this order on the ground that his appointment was made after following due procedure of selection, alleging therein that opposite party no.4 was recognized as Junior High School vide order dated 26.03.1970. The factum of recognition as Junior High School is not disputed between the parties.