Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34049 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chandra Mohan Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Shatrughan Sonwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J. Heard learned counsel for parties.
The sole issue addressed on this petition is for the respondents being commanded to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have responded to the advertisement which was issued by the Committee of Management for appointment of Class-IV staff. By a resolution of 03 August 1998 he was selected and appointed. The appointment process is stated to have been preceded by issuance of an advertisement in daily newspapers. Pursuant to the issuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner is stated to have joined the institution on 05 August 1998. The appointment of the petitioner was ultimately accorded approval by the District Inspector of Schools in terms of an order of 04 February 1999. Although the petitioner continued to work, no salary was released despite repeated representations being made in that respect. It was the aforesaid fact which constrained the petitioner to institute the present petition.
Pursuant to the liberty granted, the State respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the advertisement for appointment was not published in widely circulated newspapers. It was further contended that the approval for initiation of the appointment process had been granted by a particular DIOS against whom an inquiry had been instituted and that consequently all financial approvals in respect of orders made by that particular DIOS had been stopped.
The Court finds itself unable to countenance either of the two objections which are taken by the respondents for denying financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
Firstly, it may be noted that it is not the case of the respondents that the advertisement was issued in a newspaper which did not stand comprised in the official list of approved newspapers. Insofar as the second objection is concerned, the Court finds itself unable to appreciate the stand taken since merely because an internal inquiry had been initiated against the DIOS, that cannot constitute a valid ground for denial of financial approval to an appointment otherwise made validly. Regard must be had to the fact that in the counter affidavit the respondents do not allude to any circumstance which may have even remotely established that the selection and appointment made suffered from any manifest illegality. It is also not the case of the respondents that the order of 04 February 1999 which was made by the concerned DIOS had either been recalled or cancelled.
The Court for the purposes of considering the issue of consequential benefits takes into consideration an interim order which was passed on the writ petition on 09 June 2010 pursuant to which the petitioner has been continued to be paid current salary.
Accordingly, and for the reasons aforenoted, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. The petitioner is also held entitled to all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Vivek Kr.