RAM KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth J. The petitioner was ap pointed as L. T. grade teacher in Sri Gulab Rai Inter College on 2. 8. 1960. Subsequently by an order dated 21. 5. 1983 along with two other persons, the post of L. T. grade teacher held by the petitioner was upgraded in the scale of Rs. 1, 650-1, 280 which is the Scale of Lecturer with effect from 1. 7. 1988. By an order dated 2. 7. 1982, the Additional Direc tor, Madhyamik, U. P. cancelled the said upgradation, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the said order it was pointed but that three posts were upgraded, one of which was held by the petitioner. According to the said order, the District Inspector of Schools did not have any authority to create posts in view of Section 16-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act, therefore, the upgradation of the post of the petitioner was cancelled.

(2.) MR. V K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner attached the said order on two fold grounds: The first ground was that when by one order three posts were upgraded, only one out of them cannot be cancelled by singling out the petitioner alone allowing the other two persons to reap the benefit of the said order despite the finding that the District Inspector of Schools did not have jurisdic tion to do so.

(3.) AS relied on by Mr. V. K. Singh on the decision in the case of Sangara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983 (4) S. C. C. 225 which has laid down that in case of mass dismissal, the reinstatement of per sons through arbitrary picking and choosing is violativ of Article 14, it appears that in the present case just reverse has been done in respect of an order where by three posts were upgraded and by arbitrary picking and choosing only that of the petitioner was cancelled. Applying the analogy of the said ratio decided in the case of Sangara Singh (Supra), the present order cannot be sus tained, if the upgradation of the other two posts were not cancelled.