Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52808 of 2016 Petitioner :- Jang Bahadur Yadav And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R. K. Singh Kaosik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners claim to have been appointed on Class IV post in the Panchayat Raj Inter College, Mokalpur, Jaunpur. Papers relating to petitioners' appointment have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by the Principal on 10th July, 2012. The District Inspector of Schools has rejected such claim by the order impugned dated 8.1.2016, on the ground that by virtue of amendments incorporated in Regulation 101 contained in Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, such posts could be filled only by way of outsourcing.
The order is challenged on the ground that amendment in the regulation was made on 24th April, 2014 while the vacancy had arisen earlier and petitioners were appointed in the year 2012 itself. Submission is that rules amended subsequently cannot be given a retrospective effect, and that the appointment made could not have to be rejected with reference to the rules amended and brought in subsequently. Reliance is placed upon a Larger Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015(7) ADJ 179, wherein following observations have been made in para 14:-
"14. The judgment in A A Calton (supra) has been recently followed in a decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Vs Daya Ram14 in the context of the principle that vacancies which had occurred prior to an amendment of rules would be governed by the unamended rules and not by the amended rules where the amended rules are not made retrospective either expressly or by implication."
Although a counter affidavit has been filed, but there is no effective reply to this aspect of the matter. Law is otherwise settled that appointment made to a post would be viewed with reference to the law applicable on the date of advertisement or making of application pursuant thereto, and not any subsequent change, which might be brought in in the applicable rules. For such reasons, the order passed by the Inspector dated 8.1.2016 cannot be sustained, and is accordingly quashed.
Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools for passing a fresh order, after examining the petitioners' appointment with reference to the provisions applicable in the relevant service rules on the date of making of appointment. The required consideration shall be made within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Anil