SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.3.2005 passed by District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh. A preliminary objection regarding latches has been raised by the Learned Standing Counsel that this writ petition has been filed after a lapse of five years praying for quashing the order dated 4.3.2005. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it was only in the contempt proceeding pending before this Court, the order of 2005 was annexed with a counter affidavit then petitioner came to know in the month of August, 2009 regarding the aforesaid order. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Lab Assistant in the institution in the year 1996. The salary was not being paid then he approached this Court in 2002 by filing a writ petition No.7600 of 2002 which was finally disposed of on 20.2.2002. According to petitioner, authorities have not complied the order therefore, petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court as Contempt Petition No.91 of 2003. The compliance report was filed on 6.8.2008 then petitioner came to know regarding the order dated 4.3.2005. Prior to that date he was not aware regarding the aforesaid order, therefore, there was no occasion for challenge the same.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for parties and after perusal of record, District Inspector of Schools on the basis of direction issued by this Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and passed a detailed and reasoned order holding therein that documents submitted by respondent's institution clearly goes to show that no proper advertisement was made prior to making appointment. The petitioner' appointment was made in connivance of the then Manager and Principal without any proper approval from the competent authority and forged document has been submitted only to show that petitioner was appointed and therefore he is entitled for salary. Further finding has been recorded that appointment of petitioner itself is in totally contravention against the Full Bench Decision of this Court which clearly held that institution under the grant-in-aid, no appointment of teacher as well as any employee can be made unless and until there is a prior approval and after following proper procedure, that is advertisement in two widely circulated newspapers and after constitution of proper Selection Committee is there and the appointment as made has to be approved by the competent authority. If the appointment has not been made strictly in accordance with procedure, then no approval can be granted for the purposes of payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the recognized aided institution.;