MUNNA LAL Vs. DEVENDRA BAHADUR SINGH CHANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 29-8- 2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31509 of 2002. The facts giving rise to the present Special Appeal are:

(2.) BAGHPUR Inter College, BAGHPUR, District Kanpur Dehat is an institution aided and recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. A vacancy of a Class-3 post was caused in the institution due to death of the father of Devendra Bahadur Singh Chandel (the petitioner ). In accordance with the Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. The application was processed and was ultimately allowed on 6-12-2001. The petitioner was appointed as Class-3 employee in the institution. Since the petitioner was not paid his salary w. e. f. January, 2002, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 20787 of 2002. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17-5-2007 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

(3.) FACED with the aforesaid contentions, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P. N. Ojha submits that the Appellant Munna Lal is not eligible for promotion on the said Class III post. Therefore, the Appeal is misconceived. The legal position qua the issue of manner of appointment on one single Class III post as explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh (supra), i. e. the one single post of Class III has to be filled at the first instance by way of promotion and if the suitable candidate is not available, direct recruitment can be resorted has not been disputed. He however submits that the petitioner has been appointed under Regulations 101 to 107 and even if there is no vacancy in the said institution, he is entitled to be adjusted elsewhere and, therefore, payment of salary could not be stopped, more so, when the petitioner is continuously working in the institution.