SHRIPAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Shivam Sharma learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. This appeal assails the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2017.

(2.) The respondent No.6 is a proforma party and even otherwise, the disposal of this appeal would be only relevant for the purpose of processing the documents of the appellant who has already attained the age of superannuation, in order to execute the relief accorded hereinunder. As such, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.6.

(3.) The appellant was appointed as a Class-III employee (Clerk) in Jharkhandeshwar Vidya Peeth, Matka, Salon, district Rae Bareli. The letter of appointment dated 20.10.1983 issued by the Manager recites that the appellant had been appointed after a selection and interview held on 07.10.1983. A copy of the said appointment letter was forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer for appropriate action and approval. The District Basic Education Officer, who is the competent authority granted approval to the appointment of the appellant on 11.11.1986.