Girish Kumar Shandilya vs D.I.O.S. and Another

Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State Respondents.

The Petitioner was appointed against the substantive vacancy created on account of retirement of Shri M.C. Bansal of LT Grade. After duly notifying the vacancy to the Commission, the Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the same. Selections were held in July, 1991 and thereafter, papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh (for short ''the DIOS'') for granting approval, which were received in his office on 25.10.1991. By the impugned order dated 8.10.1992 the DIOS declined to approve the selection and appointment of the Petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the Management had failed to furnish complete papers to the Commission while notifying the vacancy; and secondly, that there was a ban of the State Government on making ad hoc appointment. The said order was challenged by means of present writ petition.

While entertaining the writ petition this Court passed an interim order dated 11.11.1992 to the effect that the Respondents shall not interfere with the functioning of the Petitioner as teacher in the institution in question and in case he is discharging his function, he shall be entitled to draw his salary. According to the Petitioner, he is continuing to teach in the institution and is drawing his salary.

On merit, it has been submitted that two grounds taken by the DIOS were not tenable in law. The first ground is very vague, as it does not spell what document was missing or what information was lacking; and secondly, the government ban has already been held to be illegal by this Court in large number of writ petitions. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32543 of 1991 (Rajesh Kaushal v. Deputy Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and another) decided on 24.4.1992 (annexure 4 to the writ petition).

Having perused the said judgment, I find that both the grounds taken in the present case were also raised in the case of Rajesh Kaushal (supra), who was also teacher in the same institution, in which the Court has held that both the grounds were untenable. I do not find any reason to differ with the judgment in the case of Rajesh Kaushal (supra). In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the DIOS refusing to grant approval cannot be sustained in law.

learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that u/s 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Petitioner would be entitled to regularization. He has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Firangi Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2010 (10) ADJ 659 (DB).

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.10.1992 is hereby quashed. Consequential order shall be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh accordingly within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the claim of the Petitioner for regularization shall also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 33-C of the Act within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.