DINESH KUMAR SINGH SENGAR CHANDRAPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT UDAY PRATAP INTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties this writ petition is decided finally at this stage in view of the Second proviso to Rule-2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1956.

(2.) In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 28.07.2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and further prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of salary to the petitioner along with arrears.

(3.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the post of Principal in Uday Pratap Inter College, Sapnavat, Ghaziabad (hereinafter in short called as the 'College') had fallen vacant due to retirement of one Sri Malkhan Singh on 30th June, 1993, thereafter the senior most lecturer Sri Man Singh was promoted to the post of Principal of the College on adhoc basis and his promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad on 22nd May, 1996. By virtue of promotion of Sri Man Singh, a lecturer in Mathematics, to the post of Principal a short-term vacancy occurred in the lecturer's grade. It appears that no suitable and eligible senior most lecturer in the college was available, therefore, the post of lecturer was advertised by the committee of management in two widely circulated newspapers, namely, 'Dainik Jagaran' and 'Punjab Kesari' on 19.06.1998 and 10.06.1998 respectively, and a duly selected committee after considering the candidature of the candidates from the open market selected the petitioner on 21.06.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner by virtue of such selection joined the duty and the relevant papers for approval were forwarded by the committee of management to the District Inspector of Schools on 08.07.1998. When no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 45705 of 1999 (Dinesh Kumar Singh Sengar v. District Inspector of Schools), which was disposed of by this Court on 28.10.1999 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools by its order dated 28,07.2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds: (a) The committee of management advertised the vacancy in such a manner that only five persons have applied. (b) Applications were not invited from the employment exchange. (c) The provisions of reservation Act of 1994 have not been followed. (d) The selection committee was not properly constituted. (e) The ban was imposed by the State Government on making appointment on 29.06.1991 and 30.7.1991. (f) There was no vacancy of lecturer in the institution.