- (1.) THE writ petition filed by the appellant for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of salary with effect from August 1997 to December 2000 was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by a judgment delivered on 13 December, 2013. Such direction was sought in view of the order dated 31 December, 1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad. The appellant claims to have been appointed on a Class IV post by the Manager/Principal of the I.K.M. Inter College, Anapur, Block Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. Approval for making payment of salary was granted by the Officiating District Inspector of Schools on 28 July, 1997 but soon thereafter this order was recalled by the District Inspector of Schools on 13 October, 1997/21 November, 1997. The appellant filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Education who, by the order dated 31 December, 1998, directed payment of salary but despite such a direction, salary was not paid as a result of which the writ petition was filed.
(2.) THE stand taken by the respondents in the writ petition was that (i) the appellant had never been appointed in the Institution; (ii) the appointing authority was the Principal of the Institution and the procedure prescribed in Regulation 101 contained in Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was not followed inasmuch as prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not taken before making the alleged appointment; (iii) when the District Inspector of Schools went on leave, the approval to payment of salary was obtained from the Officiating District Inspector of Schools; (iv) when the District Inspector of Schools was apprised of this order after his return, he immediately recalled the order granting approval; and (v) the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was final and the Deputy Director of Education was not the appellate authority. A finding has been recorded by the learned Judge after analyzing the factual position that the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees in the Institution at the relevant time when the appellant claims to have been appointed was only 15 and as 15 persons were already working, there was no vacancy against which any person could have been appointed. The learned Judge also noted that neither the appointment letter nor any other material was placed on record to show that the appellant had been appointed after the grant of approval by the District Inspector of Schools as contemplated under Regulation 101. The learned Judge also observed that it was not clear whether the appellant had been appointed by the Principal or the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to move an application before the Joint Director of Education, who was required to examine whether any vacancy existed against which the appellant could have been appointed and whether the procedure for making the appointment was actually followed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that since the Joint Director of Education had already examined the matter and had passed a detailed order dated 31 December, 1998 exercising supervisory powers under paragraph 16(8) of the Education Code, no useful purpose would be served by requiring the appellant to approach the Joint Director of Education. In this connection learned counsel pointed out that since the order dated 31 December, 1998 had attained finality as it was not challenged by the Institution in any proceedings, the relief prayed for in the writ petition for payment of salary with effect from August 1997 to December 2000 should have been granted. Learned counsel also submitted that infact the appointment of the appellant was within the sanctioned strength of 15 employees.;