Allahabad High Court
Shamsher Bahadur (In Wria 2003 Of ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 194 of 2022
Appellant :- Shamsher Bahadur (In Wria 2003 Of 2022)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Civil Secrt Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Verma,Nishi Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel representing respondent no. 1.
By means of this intra-court appeal filed under Chapter 8 Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the appellant-petitioner impeaches the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by him namely Writ A No. 2003 of 2022 challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby his claim for payment of arrears of salary for certain period was rejected, has been dismissed.
Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has recorded a finding that claim put forth by the appellant-petitioner was for payment of salary for the period 13.03.2001 to 13.06.2002 and again from 01.09.2002 to 22.07.2003, when the appellant-petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade- Knitting and Weaving). It has further been observed that the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools records a finding that initial appointment of the appellant against the vacancy was made in the year 1997 which however, was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 04.06.2001.
Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that this order of disapproval of appointment of the appellant, dated 04.06.2001 has not been challenged by the appellant as informed by the learned Counsel representing him.
Learned Single Judge further recorded a finding that the post against which the petitioner is said to have been appointed was abolished in 04.12.2000 and as such the work if any, if taken by the Management from the petitioner, was not lawful.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 to the effect that the order of disapproval of the appellant-petitioner dated 04.06.2001 was not challenged is wrong in as much as the appellant challenged the said appointment by instituting a Writ Petition No. 2599(SS) of 2001.
There is nothing on record in this Special Appeal where from it can be gathered that the said order dated 04.06.2001 was challenged by the appellant before any Forum or Court. On the contrary, what we notice is that Writ Petition No. 2599(SS) of 2001 was filed prior to passing of the order dated 04.06.2001 as at page 58 of this Special Appeal an order dated 25.05.2001 has been annexed which has been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2599(SS) of 2001. This clearly shows that the Writ Petition No. 2599 (SS) of 2001 was filed before the order of disapproval of appointment of petitioner was passed on 04.06.2001.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to an order dated 20.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 2599 (SS) of 2001, however, the said order also does not make any mention of there being any challenge to the order dated 04.06.2001. It is also to be noticed that even if the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is assumed to be correct that the appellant had challenged the order dated 04.06.2001 in Writ Petition No. 2599(SS) of 2001, what we notice is that the said Writ Petition No. 2599(SS) of 2001, was dismissed by this Court on 26.05.2010. Thus, there is nothing on record which reveals that the order dated 04.06.2001 whereby the appointment of the appellant-petitioner is said to have been disapproved, has been rescinded or set aside or quashed.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground which may warrant any interference by us in this Special Appeal.
Resultantly, the Special Appeal is hereby dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022
Jyoti/-
