Ram Chet Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Deptt Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2104 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2536 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Chet Verma And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Deptt Of Primary Education. Lko. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh,Govind Singh Bot (Govind Ram)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged an undated order allegedly issued by the Manager of the opposite party no.5-Institution terminating his services in view of dismissal of his Writ Petition bearing No.4387 (S/S) of 2004 on 31.03.2014 followed by dismissal of Special Appeal No.267 of 2014 on 12.12.2017 and dismissal of Civil Appeal No.618 of 2019 [Special Leave Petition (C) No.5084 of 2018] on 11.01.2019.

The judgments referred in the impugned order are on record and according to the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.4387 (S/S) of 2004, the petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned post as such the State was not liable to bear the salary. Moreover, the names of the petitioners were not sent in the Manager report (M.R.) at the time of taking of the Institution in grant-in-aid list. It is also the finding that the petitioners did not possesses the minimum educational qualification at the time of selection and their appointments are nullity in the eyes of law and being void ab initio. Therefore, they cannot claim continuance in service and payment of salary from the State exchequer. The approval accorded by the B.S.A., is non est, he could not have granted approval to appointments that was, admittedly, made against the Rules. The Committee of Management notified the qualifications which were not as per rules and the appointed persons such as the petitioners, admittedly, did not fulfill the qualifications. As regards the direction of learned Single Judge for recovery of salary paid to them in pursuance to interim orders for the period they worked, Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed retention of such salary to them for the period they have worked and disposed of the appeal.

In view of the above, the challenge to the order terminating the petitioners' service by the Manager of opposite party no.5-Institution is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of this petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 5.5.2022

Shanu/-