Ajay Prakash Misra, J. - (1.) IN view of the fact that affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in terms of the Rules of Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders dated 14th September, 1987, and 14th June, 1988, passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Annexures 2 and 4 respectively to the writ petition). The petitioner is claiming regularisation/approval of his appointment made on 1st April, 1987 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) on the post of Peon, a Class IV post, in Gomti Intermediate College, Phulpur, District Allahabad. The reason for not approving his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools is that the appointment of the petitioner was made beyond the norms and there was no vacancy in Class IV cadre of the college according to the G.O. dated 20th November, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that admittedly one Sri Bhagwan Din, who was a Lab. Keeper (a class IV employee) was promoted as clerk in the college on the 1st April, 1987, and thus a vacancy occurred of a class IV employee on which the petitioner was appointed. There is no denial in the counter affidavit regarding promotion of Sri Bhawan Din form the Lab. Keeper to the post of a clerk in the said college. What is contended on behalf of the respondent is that the total number of class IV employees already working in the institution may be more than what is prescribed under the aforesaid G.O. dated 20th November, 1977. The counter affidavit is not clear on the point in issue. Even the petitioner has not specifically made it clear as to the total number of existing class IV employees and also whether the post on which the petitioner was appointed was in excess as mentioned in the G.O. dated 20th November, or not. In the absence of the consideration of this aspect of the matter it is necessary to direct the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the question regarding the appointment of the petitioner it was validly made on 1st April, 1987, or not. The aforesaid respondent will pass. a speaking order keeping in view the aforesaid G.O. dated 20th November, 1977, and also keeping in view the fact as to who was the person appointed in place of Sri Bhagwan Din on his promotion as clerk. The respondents shall also consider the norms and principles laid down in the rules applicable in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition in allowed, the orders dated 14th September, 1987 (Annexure 2) and 14th June, 1988 (Annexure 4) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. Since the matter is an old one the said respondents shall decide by means of a speaking order after ascertaining the facts as required by them within a period of four months ' from the date the certified copy of the order is produced before the said authority.;