Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Minakshi Singh Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
There is a delay in filing of the appeal. However, Mr. Parihar states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit to the delay condonation application.
Having considered the submissions raised on behalf of the parties, the court finds sufficient cause having been explained in the delay condonation application in filing of the appeal. The same is condoned and the application is allowed.
The appeal shall be treated to be competent and the office shall give a regular number to the same.
Order Date :- 23.7.2014 sahu AFR Court No. - 18 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 390 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu Secy.Secondary Edu.Lko.& Ors.
Respondent :- Ramayan Singh And Ors. 4393(S/S)2010 Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Manjiv Shukla Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 8th January, 2014 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erroneously proceeded to treat the nature of appointments to be in order in accordance with the Regulations prescribed and has issued directions to grant approval and appointment as well as payment of salary to the respondent no. 1.
The learned Standing Counsel contends that such a direction could not have been given keeping in view the provisions contained in the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for the said purpose, particularly, Regulations 101 to 107 thereof. He further submits that the direction being not in conformity with law, the judgment deserves to be set aside.
Sri Parihar on the other hand contends that the vacancy being available and the procedure having been followed, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge should not be interfered with.
Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the learned Single Judge has observed that seeking permission from the District Inspector of Schools is a mere formality and can be waived off in the light of several decisions. To this proposition, we are unable to find any support in law and to the contrary the full bench decision on this issue appears to have ruled otherwise. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the respondents appear to have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge the Full Bench decision in the case of Rishikesh Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. Reported in 2009 (5) ESC Pg. 3073 = 2009 (9) ADJ 361. Consequently, the interest of justice would be served if the matter is heard again after exchange of affidavits and taking notice of the law laid down by the full bench as indicated hereinabove.
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 8th January, 2014 and remit the original petition for disposal afresh before the learned Single Judge.
Needless to say that the appeal has been disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the parties. The learned Single Judge will be at liberty to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as per convenience.
Order Date :- 23.7.2014 sahu