Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE order dated 19.3.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) Annexure 10 to the writ petition has been assailed by the three petitioners, Bal Krishan, Chandra Datt and Shiv Ganesh on the ground that despite repeated judgments and orders by this Court the D.I.O.S. is adamant not to recognize appointment of the petitioners and hence the impugned order is not only illegal but also contemptuous and deserves to be set aside. Facts in brief, as evident from record, are as under. Subhash Inter College, Itwa District Chitrakoot is a recognized college by the Board of High School and Intermediate, U.P.Allahabad under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 1921 Act). It was recognized upto High School till 1980 and was upgraded and recognized upto Intermediate in 1980. It is said that at the time of upgradation of the college three class IV employees were actually working and three posts of Class IV were lying vacant since some employees have tendered their resignation. The Principal of the college sought permission of D.I.O.S. for filling in three vacancies of Class IV vide letter dated 5.1.1983 which was granted by D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 17.1.1984 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Consequently selection was made and the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on 30.10.1984 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The petitioners were directed to join by 1.11.1984. Consequently the petitioners actually joined on the date provided in the appointment letters. The documents of appointment were sent to D.I.O.S. seeking his approval for the purpose of payment of salary. The approval was granted by the then D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 19.8.1987 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). The petitioners were accordingly paid salary from July, 1987 and in respect of arrears of salary a bill was submitted to respondent No. 2. Since no order was passed on the arrears salary bill, the petitioners made representations, but immediately thereafter on 23.9.1987 the D.I.O.S. passed an order informing that Principal misrepresented about 9 sanctioned posts and, in fact, there were only 6 sanctioned posts which were already occupied, hence appointment of petitioners were got approved by misrepresentation. He further says that one Awadh Narain died on 15.3.1985 in place whereof one Prem Narain was appointed whose appointment was approved on 8.6.1987, hence there was no vacancy and only 7 posts were sanctioned for the purpose of financial liability from State Exchequer and, therefore, the letter of approval granted earlier was cancelled.
(3.) THE petitioners aggrieved by the said order filed Writ Petition No. 18914 of 1987 wherein the order dated 23.9.1987 was stayed on 16.10.1987. THE Principal of the college despite the interim order did not allow petitioners to resume their duties and instead he (Principal of college) appointed three other persons namely respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7. THEir appointments were approved by the D.I.O.S. on 1.2.1991 (Annexure 6) to the writ petition. Writ Petition No. 18914 of 1987 appears to be finally decided by judgment dated 10.5.1987 wherein this Court noticed the mischief on the part of D.I.O.S. in as much as, on the one hand, he says that three vacancies on which the petitioners were appointed did not exist but simultaneously he granted approval for appointment of three new incumbents in 1991 and despite repeated opportunity this was not explained by D.I.O.S. in the counter-affidavit. The observations made by this Court are as follows : "I have heard Mr. P. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel. Mr. Padia draws my attention to annexure -13 which has been brought in way of amendment. It appears that three other persons have been accorded sanction in the same school in the category of IVth Class employee on 1st February, 1991. If the three posts could be said to be not available, under what circumstances, the said three posts could be available and sanction could be accorded to three other different persons has not been explained. No Counter-affidavit is forth coming the petitioners allege that they were continuously working till 15th Dec. 1990, on which date the said three persons were given appointment." ;