- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Request has been to punish the opposite parties for non compliance of the order of this Court dated 31- 8- 1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37093 of 1999.
(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: One Keshav Singh was working as Head Master of the School. On his retirement on 30-6-1991 the post of head master became vacant. On that post the senior most teacher, Sudama Tiwari was appointed on ad-hoc basis. Sri Sudama Tiwari was L. T. Grade Teacher, His post fell vacant and in the short term vacancy the management of the school appointed the petitioner under II Removal of Difficulties Order after advertisement of the post on 10-9-1991. THE appointment letter was issued on 9-12-1991 and the petitioner joined on 10-12-1991 and was working on that post. The papers of the petitioner were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as "dios") for approval but no order was passed by the DIOS. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition in this Court. In that writ petition, the DIOS was directed to decide the matter within two months. The DIOS decided the matter and passed an speaking order on 25-8-1994 in favour of the petitioner granting financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure No. 2 to the petition. However, the new DIOS stopped the payment of salary of the petitioner from July, 1995 and asked the management to submit the papers pertaining to the appointment and approval of the petitioner. The papers were submitted by the management of the School but no order has been passed by the DIOS. He started enquiry regarding which the report, Annexure No. 4 was submitted by the Accounts Officer. No order was passed on that report and therefore, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 37093 of 1999, in which this Court on 31-8-1999 ordered that the DIOS will take decision with regard to the said report of the Accounts Officer within two months. It is contended that the said order has not been complied with. Sri Rajendra Pratap, DIOS has filed short counter affidavit, in which he has alleged that the decision has been taken in compliance of the order of this Court, which is Annexure No. CA 1 to the counter affidavit. According to him, the appointment was not in accordance with rules and therefore, it has been disapproved.
(3.) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Shahi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the entire record. The enquiry was instituted by the DIOS and the Accounts Officer was entrusted with the enquiry. The Accounts Officer submitted report on 3-11-1997, which is Annexure No. 4 to the petition. According to this report the appointment of the petitioner is valid and is in accordance with rules and therefore, he recommended that financial approval to the appointment should be given.;