CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.K.S.Suryavanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6.

(2.) Under challenge is the order dated 04.10.2019, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the writ petition issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh. By the said order, one Sri Sandeep Tripathi, a general category candidate has been selected by the Commission and has been sent by the Commission for appointment in the institution in which the petitioner is presently serving as Lecturer (English). A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 not to enforce the said order and not to disturb the service of the petitioner till the disposal of Special Leave Petition No. 15277 of 2016 (Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016).

(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that a substantive vacancy arose on 01.07.2010 of Lecturer (English). The management informed the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh of the said vacancy allegedly on 01.07.2010. Subsequently, the management issued an advertisement in two news papers on 25.07.2010 and the select committee appointed the petitioner through an order dated 21.08.2010, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The appointment order itself states that the petitioner was being appointed till a regularly selected candidate came from the Commission. It is contended that on 28.08.2010, the papers pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner had been sent for approval but the approval was rejected on 13.09.2010 by the District Inspector of Schools. Being aggrieved with the said rejection, Writ Petition No. 6829 (SS) of 2010 was filed before this Court by the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 17.09.2010, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition stayed the operation of the impugned order until further orders. However, it was made clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall come to an end as soon as the regularly selected candidate comes in pursuance to the requisition sent by the Board and no separate order for termination of the petitioner's service will be required to be passed. Thereafter, the said writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2015, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the petition. The Court while deciding the writ petition directed that in case the petitioner is still working, he shall be allowed to work and shall also be paid regular monthly salary till duly selected candidate joins on the said post.