COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT MAHARAJ SHRI DANDI SWAMY KESHAVASHRAM UCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA GUNAI GAHARPUR MEJA ALLAHABAD AND ORS Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIK U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. This case has a chequered history. Several writ petitions had been filed by the Respondent No. 3 from time to time, in pursuance of which several orders had been passed by the respondent-authorities. The Respondent No. 3 Shiv Shanker Yadav claims to have been appointed on 8-7-1989 by then Principal of the institution on a Class IV post in the college. In pursuance thereof, he claims to have joined on 10-7- 1989. The college came under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government with effect from 1-4- 1996. It was only thereafter that in the year 1997 the respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 21973 of 1997 claiming that he was an employee of the college and he should be paid salary. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14-7-1997 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2, to decide the representation of the Respondent No. 3 Shiv Shanker Yadav. By an order dated 13/16-5-1998 the District Inspector of Schools, after recording a finding that the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 was fabricated, rejected the representation of the Respondent No. 3. Challenging the said order dated 13/16-5-1998, the Respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 25946 of 1998, in which only a counter-affidavit was called for but no stay order was granted. It appears that since the Respondent No. 3 was unable to get an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition, he filed another writ petition No. 36149 of 1999 with almost the same prayer, which related to payment of his salary, but without challenging the order dated 13/16-5-1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. In the said writ petition No. 36149 of 1999 there was no mention of the filing of the earlier writ petition No. 25946 of 1998 and it was merely stated that he (Respondent No. 3) had filed a representation before the Respondent No. 1 which had not been decided. A prayer was thus made for directing the said respondent to decide his representation. By order dated 24-8-1999 the writ petition No. 36149 of 1999 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the Respondent No. 3. It was in pursuance of the said order that the impugned order dated 24-12-1999 has been passed by the Respondent No. 1, Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik) treating the said representation as an appeal against the order of the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the claim of the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 1, after setting aside the order dated 13/16-5-1998 of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, allowed the representation of the Respondent No. 3 and directed for payment of salary to the Respondent No. 3 under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24- 12-1999 this writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management and the Principal of Maharaj Shri Dandi Swamy Keshavashram Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gunai Gaharpur, Meja, District Allahabad.

(2.) I have heard Sri Hari Shanker Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri Yogesh Agrawal alongwith Sri M. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 3 and have perused the record.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed on merit as well as on the basis of the conduct of the respondent No. 3.