Mohan Lal vs District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The petitioner claims that he is entitled for being appointed as a class IV employee in Agrasen Mahajnai Inter College, Chaukhambha, Varanasi which has wrongly been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi vide order dated 29.6.2007. The contention raised is that the ground of disapproval that the petitioner had attained the age of 40 years at the time of appointment cannot be pressed into service as the institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder where no such upper age limit is provided. Shri M.M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no maximum age limit in the regulations and therefore the disapproval order is erroneous.

The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the impugned order is founded on cogent reasons, inasmuch as in view of the Government Order dated 11th May, 2001 and the Circular of the Director of Education dated 1st June, 2001. The upper age limit for class-IV employee in educational institutions would be the same as provided that such class IV employee in Government service governed by the provisions of the U.P. Direct Recruitment to Group "D'' Posts Rules, 1985. The circular dated 1.6.2001 is quoted below:

The Government Order dated 11th May, 2001 has been considered in the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39969 of 2009, Principal Adarsh Inter College, Umari, Bijnor v. State of U.P. and others which supports the stand of the State.

Shri Sahai, on the other hand, relying on the decision of Smt. Shikha Tripathi and Smt. Suman Singh Vs. The State of U.P., , contends that the rules in relation to government service do not apply and therefore the stand of District Inspector of School is erroneous. A procedure provided for government service cannot be pressed into service as the service conditions of class-IV employees of an aided institution are governed by the provisions of regulations framed under the 1921 Act.

The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1851 of 2009, decided on 3rd December, 2009 whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Principal, Adarsh Inter College, Umari, Bijnor v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has been upheld and it has been further found that the decision in the case of Smt. Shikha and another v. State of U.P. and others (supra) had been rendered without noticing the relevant Government Order in this regard. In view of the settled legal position as enunciated by the Division Bench noted herein above there is no reason to accept any other proposition as the same holds good, and no decision to the contrary has been brought to the notice of the Court. Even otherwise there is no challenge to the vires or legal impact of the Government Order dated 11.5.2001. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the order dated 29th June, 2007. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.