GOPAL KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party nos.5 and 6.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.1996 whereby financial sanction to the petitioner performing duties on the post of Routine Grade Clerk in the Indira Gandhi Degree College, District Sultanpur has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on the said post without any sanctioned post being available or even without the approval of the competent authority.

(3.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, the college in question was brought under grant in aid on 29.10.1985. In pursuance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools sought clarification from the Director of Higher Education with regard to the posts of Routine Grade Clerk which were to be sanctioned in the college. The Director vide his letter dated 22.03.1986 clarified that there was no requirement for sanction of post in unaided colleges and it was only once the college was brought under grant in aid that sanction or creation of post was required. The letter further indicated that a single post of Routine Grade Clerk was deemed to be sanctioned in colleges being brought under grant in aid uptill the student limit of 200 and an additional post of such clerk would be deemed to be sanctioned in case of students in the college is beyond the limit of 200. The letter also indicated that the management of the college had informed that they had a total of 205 students which would entail the creation of 2 posts of clerk. However, a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools to substantiate the fact as to whether the college in question actually had students in excess of the limit of 200 or not. Apparently no such verification was subsequently carried out and it was deemed that figure of 205 as informed by the management of the college was correct and on that basis selection procedure was initiated for appointment on the post of Routine Grade Clerk in which the petitioner participated and was selected. Approval for his appointment was also issued by the Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated 07.04.1986 which is on record as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. As a consequence of the said approval, the petitioner was appointed and continued in service and was paid his salary for the post of Routine Grade Clerk in the college in question till the passing of the impugned order.