Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram Yadav vs Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari And ... on 24 May, 2016
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 184 of 2009
Appellant :- Raja Ram Yadav
Respondent :- Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Singh,Deepak K. Jaiswal,K.P.S. Yadav,S.P.Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankur Sharma,J.P. Mishra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Ram Janam Singh holding brief for Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
The appellant had taken a two-fold plea in the writ petition filed by him. Firstly, with regard to the claim of his appointment on the strength of a letter dated 10.7.1985 said to have been issued by the Manager of the Institution and the second plea was with regard to the alleged illegal appointments of the respondents-Subhash Chand and Smt. Asha Devi.
On the first issue, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant filed his writ petition for consideration of his representation after a long lapse of more than six years and he filed a writ petition before this Court for decision on his representation. The representation was treated to be barred by laches.
We have examined the records of the writ petition that has been filed alongwith the memo of appeal and we do not find any order of approval of the appointment of the appellant as a Teacher in the institution. It may be appropriate to put on record that the institution is a Primary School which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Basic Education Officer is the competent authority to grant approval or sanction with regard to the appointment of a Teacher. Even in an unaided institution, the staff list has to be sent to the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has found that in the staff list, nowhere the appellant's name is included. Even otherwise on inspection, the appellant was not found to be actually working in the institution.
In view of the above and having considered the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, the appellant on the alleged possession of the letter dated 10.7.1985 could not succeed to establish his appointment and his continuance in the institution when it was brought under the grant-in-aid list. The said appointment having not been established by any further substantial material, the finding returned by the learned Single Judge on the first issue therefore cannot be upturned in this special appeal on any legal ground.
So far as the second relief claimed by the appellant about the continuance of Subhash Chand and Smt. Asha Devi is concerned, the appellant having no interest in the matter nor being a valid claimant against the posts held by them, we do not find it necessary to investigate the matter further at the instance of the appellant, without prejudice to the department or any aggrieved person to question the legality of the said appointments before the appropriate forum.
The appeal therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with the said observations.
Order Date :- 24.5.2016
lakshman
[Vivek Kumar Birla, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]
