NEERAJ KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16 September 2014 has been filed by the erstwhile District Inspector of Schools, Mau, presently posted as District Inspector of Schools, Shrawasti. The limited challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge is in respect of the following observations and, consequently, imposition of Rs 25,000/ - as costs which has been directed to be recovered from the salary of the appellant for being remitted to the legal cell of the High Court:

(2.) THE writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed by the fourth respondent to the special appeal. By his writ petition, the fourth respondent sought to question the legality of an order dated 15 October 2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau (the appellant herein), besides which a mandamus was sought for filling up the post of Assistant Clerk of which a vacancy had occurred in August 2007, by advertising the post. In pursuance of an earlier order which was passed by a learned Single Judge in a previous writ petition (41704 of 2001), the appellant decided the issue of approval and by an order dated 15 October 2007 approved the appointment of the third respondent - Sunil Kumar on the basis of direct recruitment in a post which was reserved for the scheduled castes. This decision was challenged by the fourth respondent to the special appeal, who was a general category candidate. His contention was that the post ought to have been advertised in which event he would have been entitled to participate in the selection process. The learned Single Judge has found fault with the decision on the ground that the third respondent ought not to have been? granted approval for a vacancy which occurred in 2007 and, hence, the action was untenable. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to advertise the vacancy in accordance with law.

(3.) THIS part of the order has not been called into question and we clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the order which is not under challenge. However, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in making adverse findings against the appellant and in imposing costs of Rs 25,000/ -. There is nothing on the record to reflect upon the conduct of the appellant. This was not one of those cases where, for instance, an officer of the State has filed a false affidavit or made a misleading statement before the Court. Moreover, the appellant was not impleaded in his personal capacity and there was no specific allegation of mala fides against the appellant. Observations against an officer of the State have to be made with circumspection. In the present case, the appellant ought to have been granted some opportunity to controvert the allegations made, should the learned Single Judge, in the course of hearing have been of the view that his conduct was blameworthy or that it required the imposition of costs.