SANJAY KUMAR GIRI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father a lecture in Physics in Rashtriya Inter College. Bali Nichlol. Maharanjganj died in harness on 4.7.88. The petitioner became major in 1990. He was appointed on 1.7.92 by the respondents under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 (in brief rules) Financial approval was accorded on 31.8.1992 w.e.f. 1.7.92. After joining as a Class-iv employee he claimed that he should be given class-Ill post as per his qualification and made representation to the respondents but nothing was done. He filed the instant writ petition claiming promotion/appointment on a class II post. Heard Shri K. Ajit learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Srivastava learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner accepted appointment on a class-IV post on the oral assurance of the respondents that his claim to class III post will not be treated to have been waived. Though vacancies occurred and the he was qualified and eligible but he was not appointed on a Class III post. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied on a division bench judgement of this court in Hiraman vs. State of U.P. and others 1994 (1) UPLBEC 4210. Standing counsel argued that once the petitioner accepted appointment on a class-IV post he cannot claim subsequently class-III post.

(3.) The entire claim of the petitioner is based on his allegation that the respondents verbally assured him that if he accepts class-IV post it will not be treated to be wavier of his right to claim subsequently a class-III post. In Hiraman (supra) the court was considering a case where the employee had earlier been given a class-IV post under the dying in harness rules but was latter given class-III post according to his qualification. Hiraman challenged the appointment on the ground that class-III post was required to be filled by promotion. In writ petition his claim was not accepted and the appointment order was upheld. While affirming the view taken in writ petition the division bench in special appeal observed that appointment on class-IV was accepted under protest, therefore, there was no illegality in the order of the learned single judge. However this case was rendered on the facts and circumstances of that case.