Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24280 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Mishra Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools, Maharajganj, And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
While entertaining this writ petition, following orders were passed on 16.11.2018:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite three letters sent by the registered speed post, the authorities of the State had not granted prior permission to fill up the vacant post and therefore, the Committee of Management was left with no alternative, but to proceed with the recruitment. It is also stated that the procedure followed for recruitment has not been adversely commented upon by the Inspector. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Abhishek Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2015 (2) UPLBEC 1272 in order to contend that reason for denial of approval to the appointment made is inconsistent with the law laid down by this Court.
Learned standing counsel may seek instructions in the matter. As prayed, put up this case as fresh on 28.11.2018."
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 16865 of 2018; wherein, the previous order was disapproved and a fresh decision was required to be taken. Submission is that the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval has not been examined in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in Abhishek Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2015 ADJ (4) 270. Argument is that the authorities are only indulging in rituals being performed without examining the true import of the provisions of law; in as much as, neither the relevant aspects, i.e., existence of post, procedure to be followed, etc., are being examined, but the claim itself is being rejected only for the reason that prior permission has not been obtained.
Learned standing counsel has obtained instructions, according to which the selection committee was not constituted, in accordance with law, in as much as, the nominee was not assigned by the competent authority.
From the facts brought on record, it is not in issue that permission had been sought from the concerned authority and in case the authorities do not pass any orders, the claim for selection made would have to be examined on merits, keeping in view the observations made in Abhishek Tripathi (supra).
Since consideration on relevant aspects is found to be lacking, the order impugned dated 10.10.2018 cannot be sustained and is quashed.
The matter is remitted back for a fresh consideration of cause by the competent authority keeping in view the law laid down in Abhishek Tripathi (supra) within a period of two months, by a reasoned order.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Amit Mishra