Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of U P And 5 Others on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3779 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2019, passed by the Regional Selection Committee, headed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur as well as letter/order dated 19.05.2017, passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur has preferred present writ petition.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to same grievance petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by means of Writ-A No. 4378 of 2019, where it was submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Sri Sundar Singh Inter College, Ramgarh, Harchandpur, Auraiya, which is a recognised aided Intermediate Institution, governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, and the petitioner was consequently selected in the said selection process and his name was also forwarded for approval but the District Inspector of Schools did not granted approval.
4. It was informed by the State that in the meanwhile, Government Order dated 03.01.2017, was issued whereby process of appointment and the authority to grant various sanctions and approval, stood amended and consequently subsequent Government Order dated 03.01.2017 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner rather than provisions contained in earlier Government Order dated 25.05.2012.
5. Controversy raised as aforesaid was given quietus by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 02.04.2019. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below :-
"Having examined the contention advanced, this Court finds that the process of recruitment to the fill up posts of Assistant Teacher had been initiated in the present case after obtaining approval from the concerned educational authorities on 21.1.2016. Advertisements were published on 23.12.2016. The process of recruitment, so initiated, would have to be dealt with in accordance with the administrative instructions applicable on the date of commencement of recruitment itself. Any subsequent Government Order cannot be made applicable in such circumstances. The authorities of the State, therefore, would not be justified in applying the provisions of the Government Order dated 3.1.2017 so as to non-suit the petitioners.
In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. A direction is issued to the concerned authority of the State to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment and for grant of approval to it, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that the procedure enforced on the date of commencement of recruitment process i.e. 23.12.2016 would be the applicable provision, according to which, the merits of the appointment itself would be examined. Any contrary opinion expressed in the order dated 19.5.2017 cannot be approved and stands quashed."
6. According to the judgment of this Court, proceedings having been initiated on the basis of Government Order dated 15.12.2012, while Government Order dated 03.01.2017 which has come into force subsequently, would not govern the selection process and consequently the writ petition was allowed with liberty to the competent authority to proceed and pass appropriate orders for appointment and grant approval within three months from the date of the said judgment.
7. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition as a consequence of the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation.
8. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, who has been authorised to be the approving authority only, as per powers conferred in the Government Order dated 03.01.2017 and previously competent authority to give approval was District Inspector of Schools. In this regard it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy has already been settled by this Court by directing that the competent authority would be the District Inspector of Schools and not the Joint Director of Education. He submits that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
9. Perusal of the impugned order further indicates that the Joint Director of Education has re-appraised the entire facts, leading to the present controversy by not granting approval to the petitioner and other similarly selected candidates.
10. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has supported the impugned order where finding has been recorded with regard to the fresh appointments have been dealt with. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, but admits that as per judgment of this Court the Government Order dated 15.12.2012 shall govern the selection process rather than the Government Order dated 03.01.2017.
11. Considering the rival submissions it is clear that by means of judgment of this Court dated 02.04.2019, in the case of the petitioner himself, the controversy has been settled and the Government Order dated 15.12.2012 only will be application for the process of recruitment. In the said circumstances, direction was issued that the respondents shall conclude the selection process in the terms of Government Order dated 15.12.2012 and the aspect of approval be considered by the District Inspector of Schools. The impugned order dated 24.07.2019 not granting approval have been passed by the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education, is on the face of it illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the pronouncement of this court in Writ-A No. 4378 of 2019 - Sohit Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others, is therefore set aside.
12. In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed.
13. Let suitable orders be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Auraiya, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 02.04.2019.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022/S.P.
