Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Mratyunjay Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that despite being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) and continuously discharging the duties, the Petitioner is not getting the salary. The appointment has been made on the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). The procedure for such appointment has been undertaken. There was publication in two daily newspapers and the requisition has also been sent for the regular selection. The Petitioner possesses requisite qualification for the post and has been selected by the selection committee for ad -hoc appointment. The Petitioner is working without any salary in the interest of students. The salary is not being paid because the District Inspector of Schools has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Rakesh Chandra Misra reported in, 2004 (22) L.C.D. 1604 Allahabad. The Petitioner says that in this case, it has been held that the interest of the education to be students is paramount. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench. The larger Bench at Allahabad in the case of Daya Shanker Misra v. State of U.P. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20843 of 2002 has decided on 31.3.2010 that the judgment in Rakesh Chandra Misra's case is a good law. The law laid down by his Lordship in the case of Rakesh Chandra Misra's case has thus been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.
(3.) I am of the opinion that the interest of students and the education, is paramount in a democracy.;