Ajeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19870 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1, 2 and 3. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent. The case of the writ petitioner is that there is an institution namely Naveen Adarsh Inter College, Isari Salempur, District Ballia, which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 stands applicable. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the exercise under the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.23607 of 2010, Dhruv Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P., the Educational Authorities were put to task to determine the number of vacancies vis-a-vis students in the particular institution. It is further the case of the writ petitioner as portrayed in paras 7 and 8 that after determination it was found that there are nine posts of Class-IV employees in the institution duly sanctioned however only two are being manned and six are being still vacant. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the fourth respondent corresponded with the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on

28.2.2013 for filling up the Class-IV vacancies. However, nothing was done hence the fourth respondent proceeded to conduct selections and the writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Class-IV employees on 30.08.2013 and joined forthwith. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that despite the fact the writ petitioner is working but he has not been paid salary as financial approval has not been accorded. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for according approval. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to be accorded financial approval needs to be decided at the first instance by the second respondent thus the writ petitioner may approach the second respondent and he does not propose to file any response as according to him the second respondent will take care of the grievance of the writ petitioner. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia by filing a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition and on the receipt of the same the second respondent shall decide the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law after putting to notice the fourth respondent in writing in advance while deciding the fundamental issues (a) the number of the sanctioned post (b) the number of post lying vacant (c) the issue with regard to the criteria adopted by the fourth respondent for conducting selection (d) applicability and the compliance of rules (f) any other ancillary issues including delay if any. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 N.S.Rathour High Court of Judicature at Allahabad