Shyam Babu vs Director Of Education And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13554 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 838 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Shyam Babu
 
Respondent :- Director Of Education And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajneesh Kumar Sharma,Vinod Shankar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2022 wherein while dismissing the writ petition, it is directed that in case the petitioner had worked on the post in question, any payment made to him for having worked as Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar in the institution, shall not be recovered.

The order impugned, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, dated 30.05.2000 records that the petitioner herein was appointed on part-time basis for a period of 29 days and 27 days by Teacher-Parent Association which were making payment to the petitioner. There was no question for making appointment permanent or grant of salary for the period of non-working. The said order further records that by communication dated 04.06.1999, the District Inspector of Schools, J.P. Nagar did not grant permission for appointment on the post in question and directed for re-payment or deposit of the payment made to the petitioner herein. Under the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Principal of the institution concerned deposited money in the government fund on 30.05.2000 paid to the petitioner herein.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the interim order dated 29.08.2000, the petitioner had been allowed to continue to work on the post in question and the appointment of the petitioner/appellant herein had been made in acute emergency, in view of the letter dated 06.11.1998 written by the principal of the institution concerned. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner had continued for about 22 years pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and requirement of the institution concerned. The respondent, therefore, cannot be allowed to assert that the petitioner's appointment in the institution on the post in question suffers from any infirmity.

Noticing the above, on a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring before us any appointment letter issued to the petitioner for permanent appointment on the post in question. The letter appended at page '52' of the paper book with regard to the appointment of the petitioner shows that it was for a short period of 21 days.

Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar in the institution concerned by notifying the said vacancies strictly in accordance with law, by adopting the procedure prescribed under the recruitment rules. We, therefore, cannot take exception to the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

It is further made clear that the protection granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.08.2000 in the writ petition, shall remain in operation.

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

P Kesari