TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.

(2.) The contention raised is that the impugned order proceeds on erroneous assumptions of fact and law, inasmuch as, the petitioners were validly appointed against posts, which had fallen vacant on account of the retirement of the incumbents, who were earlier working as approved employees. It is further submitted that the appointment of the petitioners were made by the then Principal who for all practical purposes was functioning as the Principal of the institution. Sri Tripathi therefore submits that the two findings recorded on the aforesaid issues deserves to be set aside and the petitioners deserve to be granted the benefit of payment of salary.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. The same recites that in view of the Government Order dated 28th November, 1977, the posts which are in excess of the norms, could not have been offered for fresh appointment by the Principal as it would violate the provisions of the Government Order dated 20.11.1977. The second finding recorded is that the Principal of the institution Shri Mool Chand Pandey had already attained the age of superannuation, and therefore he was not entitled to make the appointments. Shri Tripathi has relied on the decisions in the case of Krishna Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools and in the case of Mohd. Ayub v. District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad and others reported in 1995 ALR 1996 and 2005 (1) UPLBEC 763 respectively.