SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. After hear ing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Stand ing Counsel, it appears that the petitioner's claim for relief is solely based on the observation made in the impugned order that the petitioner was found work ing in the institution. The learned Counsel for the Committee of Management con tends that from the impugned order it is apparent that there was no material to show that the petitioner was ever ap pointed in any appropriate selection process nor any appointment letter was ever issued to him. The petitioner could not show from the Writ Petition or its enclosures that the said facts contended by the respondents are in any way incorrect. Admittedly there is no appointment letter and also admittedly the petitioner was not appointed following any appropriate selection process.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents produced materials to show that the petitioner was appointed in a peculiar circumstance for gaining ex perience and he will not claim any right for the same but such documents produced at this stage cannot be taken into considera tion.

(3.) IN view of the findings as above that there was neither appointment letter of petitioner nor there was selection of the petitioner for the said post, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and no interference is required in this case.