Allahabad High Court
Tejveer Singh And Another vs D.I.O.S. Aligarh And Another on 9 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5055
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45829 of 2002
Petitioner :- Tejveer Singh And Another
Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Aligarh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nasiruzzaman,A.K.Singh,Anuj Shukla,Anurag Shukla,K.P. Shukla,P.K. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition is of the year 2002. Both petitioners have challenged an order dated 04.09.2002 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh, whereby approval of appointment of petitioners granted earlier vide orders dated 07.04.2000 and 08.02.2000, respectively, were recalled.
2. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2002 has stayed operation of impugned order dated 04.09.2002.
3. It appears that said interim order remained continued till the present writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2019 since none appeared on behalf of petitioners and treating the writ petition being infructuous.
4. Thereafter aforesaid order was challenged by petitioners by way of filing Special Appeal (Defective) No. 430 of 2019, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2019 and writ petition was remitted to Single Judge for its adjudication on merit.
5. During pendency of this writ petition, it is brought into notice that similar impugned order was passed with regard to other institution also which was under challenge in connected Writ-A No. 39492 of 2002. Said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2019, which has been referred by this Court in its order dated 27.10.2023 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:
?1. Heard Shri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon order dated 08.02.2019 passed by this Court in Writ A No.39492 of 2002 (Mukesh Kumar v. D.I.O.S. Aligarh And Others), by which, identical order dated 04.09.2002 as impugned in the present writ petition has been set aside by this Court.
3. For a ready reference, order dated 08.02.2019 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"1. Heard Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee and appointment was given approval by District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "DIOS") vide order dated 09.02.2000/18.02.2000. Appointment was made after advertisement of vacancy and through selection procedure. Further by means of impugned order dated 04.09.2002, said order of approval has been cancelled on the ground that provisions relating to reservation were not followed and that there was ban for direct recruitment by Government Orders dated 09.07.1996 and 03.11.1997, but it is not stated anywhere that ban was continuing in 1999 and 2000 also.
3. So far as reservation is concerned, in the impugned order dated 04.09.2002, there is no discussion as to how much was sanctioned strength, how many vacancies were there and whether same could have been reserved or not.
4. In the writ petition, it is stated that there are seven sanctioned posts and vacancy occurred due to retirement of one Fatti Singh on 31.12.1999. Out of seven vacancies, only one could have been reserved for Scheduled Caste and posts for OBC, but there is nothing to show that other persons holding other posts did belong to reserved category and vacant post in question was to be filled in by reservation. As such, impugned order is vague and does not show any application of mind on relevant aspects and cannot be sustained.
5. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.09.2002 is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits."
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that although approval granted to the petitioners' appointment was recalled by the order impugned, the petitioners are still working in the Institution and are getting salary.
5. With regard to the actual working of the petitioner, issuance of notice to the respondent no.2 is necessary.
6. Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week.
7. List this case in second week of December, 2023.?
6. Later on this Court passed following order dated 13.05.2024:
?The first petitioner is said to have retired from service, according to the second respondent whereas the second petitioner is continuing in service and being paid salary. Prima facie, the ground on which the impugned order dated 04.09.2002 has been set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2019 also obtains in this case.
In the circumstances, this petiton is admitted.
Let counter affidavits be filed by learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 within a week.
The operation of the impugned order dated 04.09.2002, insofar as it relates to the second petitioner, who is said to be still working, shall remain stayed and the second petitioner shall be paid his salary regularly, until further orders of this Court.
List for hearing on 23.05.2024 immediately after fresh cases of the day, since this case is an old one and relates to the year 2002.
Let this order be communicated to the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and the Principal, Sarvopyogi Inter College, Palsera, District- Aligarh through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.?
7. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners submits that neither any affidavit has been filed by State-Respondents nor retiral benefits of Petitioner-1 has been released, on ground that present petition is pending.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents is not able to support impugned order on ground that earlier similar types of orders have already been set aside as well as that on the strength of interim order both petitioners have worked.
9. In aforesaid circumstances, interim order dated 25.10.2002 is made absolute and this writ petition is disposed of with observation that retiral benefits of Petitioner-1, Tejveer Singh, be released in accordance with law as well as Petitioner-2, Dori Lal, will work and be paid salary month to month basis in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025
AK
