RANJAN S O LATE KANHAIYA PRASAD VERMA KAMLA SHANKAR MAURYA S O SHRI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ISHWAR SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 4/16.1.2003 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has refused to grant the approval of the appointment of the petitioners as a Class-IV employee in the educational institution known as Ishwar Saran Intermediate College, Allahabad.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that one Ayodhya Prasad Shukla, a peon in the educational institution retired on 30.9.1997 and information about his retirement and consequently the vacancy occurring on the said post of peon was intimated to the District Inspector of Schools by the Principal on 4.10.1997. On 20.2.1998, the District Inspector of Schools informed the institution that the said post would be filled up under the Dying in Harness Rules. On 18.3.1998, the Principal informed the District Inspector of Schools that since no person was available under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, the said post may not be reserved under these rules and some other person be appointed on the vacant post. By another letter dated 5.4.1999, the principal requested the District Inspector of Schools to fill up the said post. By the same letter, the principal also informed the Inspector that another peon and a sweepress would retire on 30.6.1999, and therefore, requested him to take steps to fill up these posts which would occur after 30.6.1999. A reminder was sent by the Principal on 17.5.1999. In spite of these requests and reminders, the District Inspector of Schools did not stir in the matter and sat over the requests of the principal. Consequently, since the institution was without the sweepress and two peons and the day to day work was suffering, the principal appointed the petitioners on the post of peon and sweepress on 29.10.1999 and by a letter dated 1.11.1999 informed the District Inspector of Schools of their appointments and requested him to approve their appointments so that salary could be paid to them under the Payment of Salaries Act.

(3.) Instead of approving or disapproving their names, the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 29.12.1999 forwarded the name of one Vineet Kumar for being appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. By another order dated 17.1.2000, the District Inspector of Schools reprimanded the principal for appointing petitioner No. 2 and 3 without seeking previous permission from him. By another order dated 19.1.2000, the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the name of one Rajeev Kumar for an appointment on the post of a peon. The orders dated 29.12.1999, 17.1.2000 and 19.1.2000 were challenged by the petitioners in Writ petition No. 8043 of 2000, and also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools to grant financial approval of their appointments. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment dated 22.5.2002 and the impugned orders were quashed. This Court held that since no candidate under the Dying-in-Harness Rules were available, the appointment of the petitioners were made after due advertisement and that the grounds for rejecting the financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools could not be approved by the Court. This Court further held that the appointing authority could not be expected to wait indefinitely, the decision of the District Inspector of Schools and therefore, in such a situation where no orders was being passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the action of the institution in making the appointments was justified as the working of the College was suffering. This Court consequently remanded the matter back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders on the approval of the appointment of the petitioners.