Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic ... on 2 April, 2013
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9700 of 2006
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Education & 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Dharam Raj Mishra,Amrendra Nath Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned standing counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary of the Assistant Teacher with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. 2.12.2004.
The petitioner was appointed after the post was advertised by the duly constituted Selection Committee wherein the observer appointed by the respondent no.3 i.e. Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari also participated. There is no discrepancy in the procedure followed for appointment of the petitioner except that the letter appointing of Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari as an observer is a fake document.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 was given sufficient opportunity on the earlier occasions to demonstrate as to how the letter of Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 27.11.2004 appointing of the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari as an observer for the selection is a fake and fictitious but no material in this regarrd was ever filed.
It is not disputed that the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikarihad had participated as an observer in the selection process and has submitted a report where under no irregularity in the procedure for making the selection was pointed out.
The aforesaid letter no. 3556-57/2004-05 dated 27.11.2004 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. This letter is said to have been issued pursuant to the letter of the Committee of Management of the institution dated 25.11.2004. The petitioner has also brought on record through supplementary affidavit information received by him under the Right to Information Act regarding dispatch of the aforesaid letter from the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The said information reveals that the above letter was dispatched to the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari with copy to the committee of management of the institution. Therefore, as the dispatch of the aforesaid letter to the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the copy to the committee of management of the institution stands proved, it cannot be said that it is a forged and fictitious documents. Once the aforesaid letter appointing the observer stands approved and there is no other illegality pointed out in the appointment of the petitioner, there appears to be no justification on the part of the respondent in refusing to pay salary to the petitioner or to contend that his appointment is invalid.
It is admitted that papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner were submitted by the committee of management to the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda, respondent no.3 for approval on 6.12.2004 on which till date no specific order has been passed.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for salary on the post of assistant teacher with effect from the date of his appointment provided he has been regularly functioning on the said post. The District Inspector of Schools may consider the matter for approval of the appointment of the petitioner, if not already approved or deemed to be approved in law and on being satisfied that the petitioner had been working all through make payment of salary and all emoluments to him forthwith.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2013
R.U.
