SUDHIR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A post of clerk is stated to have fallen vacant on 3.1.2012. Intimation of it was given to the District Inspector of Schools on 8.1.2012. It is stated that no appointment was made and consequently, the authorised controller proceeded to advertise the post on 10.3.2012. It is claimed that pursuant to an advertisement, selection committee was constituted which has selected the petitioner. The authorised controller, vide his letter dated 24.3.2012 has forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur for consideration and approval of appointment, which is stated to be pending.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 7 has filed an impleadment application and also a counter affidavit, according to which, the post in question was to be filled by way of promotion and the District Inspector of Schools has approved the promotion of respondent no. 7 on 31.1.2013 and that the said respondent no.7 is working pursuant to an appointment order issued on 4.2.2013.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that although an appointment letter dated 4.2.2013 is stated to have been issued in favour of respondent no. 7 but infact, the respondent no. 7 has neither been appointed nor he has actually been working in the institution ever since then. Rather, it is claimed by the counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is continuing as clerk in the institution and he is entitled to be paid salary. Following prayers have been made in the writ petition: -