DAMODAR YADAV Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 6 and perused the record. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 which may be placed on record. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2004 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mau whereby the earlier order dated 21.2.2004 passed by the same authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Mua, has been cancelled.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Damodar Yadav as well as Respondent No. 6 Ramadhar Yadav were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Shri Krishna Vidyapith Higher Secondary School, Chiraiyokot, Mou. A dispute arose with regard to the absorption of one Assistant Teacher on the post of L.T. grade teacher which had fallen vacant on the retirement of one Sri Pati Ram Yadav on 30.6.2003. Admittedly, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh passed an order dated 20.2.2004 for adsorption of the petitioner on the vacant sanctioned post of L.T. grade and directed the District Inspector of Schools for necessary compliance. In compliance thereof the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 21.2.2004 for absorption of the petitioner on the vacant post of L.T. grade teacher in the institution. By means of the impugned order dated 15.5.2004 the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the earlier order passed by the then District Inspector of Schools on 21.2.2004. The said order dated 15.5.2004 has been passed allegedly on the basis of an interim order dated 3.5.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 13932 of 2003, Ramadhar Yadav v. Director of Secondary Education and Ors. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that in the said Writ Petition No. 13932 of 2003, the dispute was between Ramadhar Yadav (Respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition) and one Sri Pati Ram Yadav, who had since retired on 30.6.2003. Even otherwise the said interim order dated 3.4.2003 was operative only till the next date of listing. The said writ petition was listed on 25.7.2003 on which date three weeks time was granted to the petitioner of that writ petition for filing rejoinder affidavit and the interim order dated 3.4.2003 had not been extended. Thus on the date when the impugned order was passed i.e. on 15.5.2004, the interim order dated 3.4.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 13932 of 2003 was not in existence. Since the impugned order has primarily been passed on the basis of the said interim order dated 3.4.2003 which was neither applicable in the present case as it related to the dispute between Respondent No. 6 herein and one Sri Pati Ram Yadav who had retired, and also that the said interim order was not operative on the date when the impugned order was passed, as such the impugned order dated 15.5.2004 is liable to be set aside. It is further not understood as to under which provision of law the District Inspector of Schools had the power to cancel its earlier order dated 21.2.2004 which had been passed on the direction/order dated 20.2.2004 having been issued by his superior officer i.e. Joint Director of Education.