Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 885 of 2018 Appellant :- Uma Shankar Singh Respondent :- Dist. Inspector Of School And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lallan Prasad Singh,Pankaj Misra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
The appeal questions the correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 18th May 2018 contending that the appellant had been validly appointed by the Principal of the institution which is an Intermediate College governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the Regulations framed there under as such his services could not have been dispensed with.
It is urged that the documents for granting financial sanction and approval to the appointment of the appellant had been forwarded but the District Inspector of Schools failed to pass any order thereon as a result whereof the then Principal of the institution sent a communication to the appellant that the appellant cannot be paid his salary as there is no approval of the competent authority. Upon this communication and with a recital that his services are no longer required, the order so issued on 25th May 2001 by the Principal of the institution came to be challenged in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal.
The writ petition has been dismissed holding that the appellant has been unable to substantiate the very foundation of his appointment inasmuch as the Committee of Management has already sent a communication to the District Inspector of Schools that the alleged proposal for approving the appointment of the appellant which is said to have been dispatched was a fake document and was not on record.
The background in which the writ petition was filed appears to be that the appellant claimed his appointment with effect from 1st September 1997. No approval was granted. The documents that were alleged to have been sent to the District Inspector of Schools were fake. It was after almost four years that the communication was sent by the Principal on 25th May 2001 declining to allow the appellant to continue further in services on account of the absence of the approval from the competent authority. This was made the basis of challenge before the learned Single Judge and we find that an interim order on 12.6.2001 was passed by the learned Single Judge that the operation of the impugned order dated 25.5.2001 shall remain stayed until further orders.
Having perused the same, we find that the said exercise of grant of an interim order was an infructuous exercise inasmuch as no result can emanate by staying the operation of a communication by the Principal of the institution when the approving authority is the District Inspector of Schools.
The writ petition appears to have remained pending and has now been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18th May, 2018.
Having gone through the record of the writ petition and in the absence of any approval or financial sanction by the competent authority, and further on account of the fact that the documents on which reliance has been placed are stated to be fake, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement dated 18th May 2018 of the learned Single Judge which does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Gss