Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner ,who was appointed by adopting the procedure as contemplated under law for making appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T.Grade in two daily news papers and the petitioner was selected having high quality points and marks on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T.Grade, which had fallen vacant on account of retirement of Km Sharaola Pratibha, Assistant Teacher L.T.Grade on 01.07.2007. Requisition to the Board was forwarded on 04.07.2007.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working continuously since 02.02.2008 but he has not been paid his salary on account of the fact that at the relevant period of time the case of Rakesh Chandra Misra was referred to the larger Bench.
Now the controversy has been decided by this Court in the case of Daya Shanker Mishra Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20843 of 2002 (Allahabad) decided on 31.3.2010.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled for salary in the aforesaid back ground and in view of the directions given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case.
In these circumstances, the operation of the impugned order dated 06.06.2010 shall remain stayed and the opposite parties are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner including arrears of salary. However, the appointment of the petitioner shall survive till any regularly selected candidate comes and joins.
Order Date :- 14.9.2010 kkm