Shri Kant Singh vs District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Others

R.K. Agrawal and Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, JJ.—These two special appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by learned Single Judge wherein writ petition No. 30191 of 1992 filed by Sri Gaya Prasad, has been allowed and writ petition No. 17234 of 1992 filed by present appellant, has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge has further directed to respondents to permit Gaya Prasad to discharge his duties and to pay him salary of the service was awarded for the period during which he was not worked in the institution.

We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

From the facts as found by learned Single Judge, it appears that in the institution namely Sri Durga Devi Intermediate College, Osha, Mandhanpur, Allahabad, a post of Mali (gardener) was earlier filled by appointment of Gaya Prasad. His services is alleged to be terminated on 30th June, 1991. In the vacancy thus caused, the appellant Shri Kant Singh has been appointed.

The case set up by Gaya Prasad before the Court was that his services was not terminated in accordance with law and therefore, he continued in service as an employee, as a result of which there was no vacancy on the post of Mali (gardener) in the said institution on winch the present appellant has been appointed. The District Inspector of Schools has also stated that the order of termination of Gaya Prasad has not been sent for approval before the District Inspector of Schools nor there was any order of approval. Learned Single Judge on basis of material and evidence on record had come to the conclusions that the services of the Gaya Prasad had not been terminated. He is continuing in the employment of the institution. That being the position, the vacancy on account of termination of service of Gaya Prasad did not occur and therefore, the present appellant cannot have been appointed.

We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

The appeal fails and is dismissed.