Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5784 of 1994 Petitioner :- Chandra Pal Singh Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Others Petitioner Counsel :- H.N.Tripathi,Ashok Khare,D.K. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Sc,S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated
18.11.1993 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). It appears that petitioner claims
himself to be appointed on ad hoc basis for the post of Lecturer in the year
1992 after the resignation of Shri R.R. Yadav, who alleged to be working on
the post of Lecturer in (Economics). Petitioner claims that his appointment
was made after following the proper procedure as provided under the Rules.
The salary of the petitioner was not being paid therefore, petitioner filed a
writ petition before this Court being a Writ petition No. 27346 of 1993 which
was finally disposed of by this Court on 25.8.1993 directing the petitioner to
make a representation to the respondent No. 1 i.e. the District Inspector of
Schools to decide it within a period of two months on the basis of the
representation submitted by the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools
vide its order dated 8.11.1993 has rejected the claim of the petitioner holding
therein that the Committee of Management as well as the Principal of the
institution in spite of the repeated letters and directions, no documents have
been submitted and from the documents submitted by the petitioner it does
not appear that proper procedure was ever followed for the purposes of
appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis. Further, finding has been
recorded that no documents have been filed to show that Shri R.R. Yadav,
Lecturer, (Economics) was ever appointed in the institution and after his
resignation the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was made. A finding has
also been recorded that appointment of the petitioner has been made on a non-
sanctioned post. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the
present writ petition and by order dated 5.9.1994 has obtained an interim
order staying the operation of the order dated 18.11.1993 and for a direction
for payment of salary.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged as such the
petition is being disposed of finally. Shri D.K. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been appointed on the
post after resignation of Shri R.R. Yadav and the requisition to that effect was
sent to the Commission for making permanent appointment but as no
appointment was made thereafter the petitioner was given ad hoc
appointment. If the relevant documents is not being submitted by the
Committee of Management as well as by the Principal, the petitioner cannot
be held guilty for the same and now the petitioner in lieu of working from
1993 is entitled for regularisation on the said post.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from the
record it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was on a non
sanctioned post, the letter dated 19.7.1995 sent to the District Inspector of
Schools (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit) clearly indicates that no
appointment has been made by the institution of the petitioner. The
Committee of Management has not sent any requisition and if somebody is
claiming any appointment on the said post it is a totally forge appointment
and cannot be said to be legal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record it
appears that the petitioner claims that he has been appointed on the post of
Lecturer in view of the vacancy caused by one R.R.Yadav. The District
Inspector of Schools while considering the claim of the petitioner issued
vairous letters and reminders to the Committee of Management as well as the
Principal of the institution to submit relevant records and requisition for the
purposes of appointment of the petitioner but no documents were ever
submitted and letter dated 19.7.1995 indicates that no appointment has been
made on the post on which the petitioner is claiming to be appointed. Further,
the Manager of the institution has sent a letter to the District Inspector of
Schools dated 22.7.1993 which states that the post of Lecturer in Economics
is vacant from 26.2.1981 and as there was some dispute therefore, no
appointment has been made after that. If that was so in the opinion of the
Court if any appointment was not made after 1981 then how an ad hoc
appointment can be made in the year 1993. Under the Rules, sanctioned posts
will be deemed to be surrendered if no appointments are made for a period of
one year from the date of vacancy. In the present case also if the post was
vacant from year 1981 what was the occasion to make an ad hoc appointment
in the year 1993. This clearly goes to show that the appointment of the
petitioner if any as alleged by the petitioner if not in consonance of the Rules
and there are no documents which shows that proper procedure was ever
followed while making the appointment of the petitioner. Further, the
petitioner himself is claiming that he has been appointed but the Committee of
Management and the Principal of the institution clearly denied on the basis of
various letters and communications therefore, in my opinion no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
Pk