Sudhir Kumar vs State Of U P And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3393 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sudhir Kumar vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 6 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133087
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13173 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. The writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the third- respondent with consequential direction to the respondent no.1 to 4 to approve the financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner made against vacancy of Class-IV posts in the fifth- respondent Institution. As there are vacant posts of Class-IV in fifth- respondent Institution the Director vide his order dated 11.01.2011 has granted permission to fill up the one post of Class-IV employee. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools has communicated the same vide order dated 12.01.2011. Consequent to the advertisement made by the fifth- respondent, 12 persons including the petitioner have submitted their applications and 20 candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange. Based on the same, the fifth- respondent- Principal has fixed/scheduled the date for interview on 13.12.2014, on which date only 13 candidates appeared. As the interview could not be held on that date due to technical reasons the same was postponed to 20.12.2014 by duly intimating to all the persons those who have appeared on that date. Accordingly, all 13 persons again appeared on 20.12.2014 and participated in the said selection process. Based on the merit, the petitioner was selected and vide letter dated 29.12.2014, the said selection proposals were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. Despite receiving the said proposals, when the respondents have not passed any order, the Principal has issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 31.01.2015 and accordingly he joined in the Institution on 04.02.2015 and is discharging his duties at utmost satisfaction of the fifth- respondent Institution.

2. When the proposals were not considered by the respondents the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.37500 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2017 directing the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, expeditiously. Further, the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to place the matter before the Regional Level Committee who shall take decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

3. Despite the said direction when the respondents had not choosen to implement the orders of the Court, the petitioner also presses the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, consequently the respondents have passed the present impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(i) As the advertisement is invalid for the reasons that the advertisement has not contained minimum qualification to be possessed by the petitioner nor scale of pay and age limit is also not mentioned.

(ii) Though the permission is granted in the year 12.01.2011 but the process of selection was initiated only on 04.11.2014 after lapse of almost three years.

(iii) When the schedule for the selections was postponed but the same has not given publicity by publishing in newspaper finally they have not followed the regulations framed for Group- D employees. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders the present writ petition is filed.

4. After notice the respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein they have taken same stand that vide Government Order dated 04.09.2013 there was an amendment to Regulation-101 Chapter-III of Intermediate Education Act with regard to the filling up of vacancies of the Class-IV employees. Questioning the said Government Order the writ petitions were filed and the said writ petitions were allowed as against the same the State has preferred Special Appeal before this Court wherein this Court has passed order on 19.11.2018, accordingly, the petitioners appointment is contrary to the said amendment. Further, they have submitted that as per material annexed which shows that based on the advertisement 32 candidates have responded and out of which 19 candidates were absent and the selection was postponed for reasons of non-presence of one of the member, the said information of interview was sent through posts or through any other source. In view of the same 19 candidates have not appeared and further the notification after long lapse of 3 years, accordingly, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner which is in accordance with the Government Order dated 04.09.2013 and also contrary to the Regulation- 101 to 107.

5. Based on the above averments learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as far as first ground of non- mentioning minimum educational qualifications and maximum age limit the issue was considered by this Court in catena of judgments and held that on that ground that selection cannot be vitiated. Further, as far as second ground is concerned as per Regulation the fifth- respondent has got permission from the competent authority to fill up the vacancy and there might be some delay in initiation of the process on that ground the petitioner's financial approval cannot be rejected and in fact the fifth- respondent has got permission from the second- respondents and the said approval/ permission is also communicated to the fifth- respondent by the fourth- respondent. When the said procedure has been followed by the fifth- respondent, therefore, based on the delay of initiation of the selection process, the selection of the petitioner cannot be vitiated. The other grounds taken by the respondents is contrary to record. In fact the scheduled was fixed for selection on 13.12.2014 and only 13 candidates have appeared and after postponement of the date and re-fixing of interview date as 20.12.2014 which was intimated to all the candidates and all the 13 candidates those who have appeared on 13.12.2014 had again appeared on 20.12.2014, hence, the objection taken by the respondents as to postponement date was not re-notified was contrary to record. Persons those who were interested and those who have appeared on 13.12.2014 had again appeared on 20.12.2014 also. In fact there are no complaints from any third party for not notifying the postponement date. Hence, the respondents cannot deny financial approval to the petitioner on the ground of non-notifying the date of postponement to 20.12.2014. Finally, as the selection with regard to Class-IV employees to Regulation 101 is concerned, in fact the Apex Court has protected the selections made to the persons those having prior approval. In the instant case it is admitted fact that permission was granted to fill up the said post by the competent authority on 11.01.2011.

6. In view of the above factual position the impugned orders are contrary to record and law. Hence, the request to set aside the same and remanding the matter to the authorities to pass appropriate orders against the proposals sent by the fifth- respondent. Though, the State Counsel has made arguments based on the averments made in the counter affidavit but fact remains that as the permission was granted by the second- respondent to fill up the post as request made by the fifth- respondent and the selections were made in accordance with Regulation-101 to 107 and in fact there are no complaints with regard to selection process and in the impugned order there is factual contradictions pointed out by the authorities. The rejection is only made on certain lapses not on illegaliy hence the impugned order is contrary to record and accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 is set aside, remanding the matter to the third- respondent to consider the proposals sent by the fifth- respondent with regard to appointment of the petitioner in Class-IV posts once again and pass appropriate order by granting necessary approvals within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 6.8.2025

AdityaG

(Donadi Ramesh,J.)