- (1.) This petition is another example as to how the orders passed by the writ Court are being deliberately violated and situation is being created by the highest officers of the Education Department namely the Secretary (Secondary Education) and the Director of Education (Secondary) for approving payment of salary to teachers and staff without actually verifying as to when they were appointed and after following what procedure. This Court may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 06.04.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26113 of 2006 to which both the officers were a party. The Hon'ble Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the said judgment recorded that kith and kins of Principal, Manager, teaching, non-teaching staff, employees of District Inspector of Schools' office were inserted in the list of Staff of the institution for payment of salary after the institution was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government with a vested interest to benefit their own men whose names were: (a) Jay Prakash Rajpoot s/o. Manager of the institution. (b) Chhote Lal Rajpoot: real nephew of the real brother in-law of the Manager. (c) Malikhan Singh: real nephew of the Principal. (d) Dinesh Chandra: son of the Manager. (e) Rakesh Kumar Katiyar: relative of clerk in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. (f) Anita: daughter of retired Clerk of the office of the District Inspector of Schools.
(2.) Thereafter the Court proceed to direct the Director of Education to not only examine the correctness or otherwise of the relationship noticed above but also see the mode and manner of their appointment. It was provided as follows: The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer at Lucknow after calling for entire record from the institution. It shall also be seen as to at what point of time, incumbents in whose favour order had been passed under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, had been appointed and the way and manner in which they had been appointed. Needless to say that fresh exercise be taken preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(3.) It is surprising that the Director who was granted three months' time to undertake the exercise, took three years to do the needful. The findings recorded by the Director of Education in his order dated 10.09.2009 are shocking. The Director in his order after issuing notices to the parties concerned, in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 records that the relationship with the persons concerned as noticed above, could not be established from records. Such approach of the Director practically amounts to abuse of the powers vested in him and an attempt to defrauding the public exchequer by deliberately not recording a finding as to whether the employee concerned was related to the prohibited degree with the management of the institution or not.;