Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1015 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh,Ashok Mehta, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23137 of 2016, which came to be disposed of vide following orders passed on 19.5.2016:-
"Heard Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.
In view of the nature of the order sought to be passed, it is not necessary to issue any notice to respondent no.3.
The two petitioners are stated to have been appointed on a Class-IV post in the Sarv Hitkari Inter College, Kina Nagar, Meerut (the Institution) through a process of selection initiated through an advertisement dated 12.6.2009 and the petitioners were selected and appointed on 12.7.2009. Thereafter, the selection papers of the petitioners are stated to have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut on 16.7.2009 for grant of financial approval to their appointment but till date no decision has been taken.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.
This writ petition is therefore, disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.2-District Inspector of Schools, Meerut to examine the matter and take a decision in accordance with law with regard to grant of financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits".
Pursuant to the aforesaid order petitioners' claim has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, vide his order dated 17.5.2017. The order impugned records that the original records relating to petitioners' appointment have not been produced by the institution and that on account of amendment introduced in Regulation-101 in the year 2014, such appointment could only be made by way of outsourcing.
The order is challenged on the ground that the amendment introduced subsequently in the Regulations cannot be given retrospective effect inasmuch as petitioners' appointment has been made in the year 2009 as per the procedure which existed then in the Statute book. It is also contended that the original records had been suppressed by the Principal of the institution on account of the dispute between the rival fractions of the Committee of Management, and that such records have now been traced out.
Learned Standing Counsel states that in case original records are produced before the authority concerned, he shall revisit the issue.
From what has been observed above this Court finds that the grounds to non-suit the petitioners cannot be sustained inasmuch as the amendment introduced in the regulation 2013-2014 cannot be given a retrospective effect. The validity of appointment will have to be tested with reference to the law existing on the date of appointment and not on the date of its consideration.
In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this petition therefore stands disposed of, permitting the petitioners to represent their grievance before the respondent no. 2 afresh, alongwith certified copy of this order. The Principal of the institution shall also forward all relevant records relating to petitioners' appointment within a period of two weeks from today to the District Inspector of Schools. Inspector concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to respondent nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter proceed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months thereafter. The validity of appointment would be tested with reference to Regulations as it stood at the time of appointment and subsequent amendment would not be pressed into service.
In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of cause, order impugned dated 17.5.2017 stands quashed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 n.u.