K.Narayan - (1.) THE petitioner has desired this court to quash the letter dated 14-2-1989. of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the said officer has declined Jo accord his approval and financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner as teacher in the C. T. grade in Chacha Nehru Higher Secondary School, Majhawan, (hereinafter called as the School).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17595 of 1950, Ajai Prakash Mishra v. The District Inspector of Schools, decided on 10-12- 1991 and desired that on parity basis, this petition should also succeed. The matter was, however, heard on merits at length and finding myself unable to persuade myself to agree, I am proceeding to give a detailed judgment. I am afraid that parity cannot be extended in cases where one party or his counsel at an early stage failed to bring correct law to the notice of the court. According to the petitioners' version the management of the school had sent an intimation of vacancy in respect of four posts (two in L. T. and two in C T. grade) on 11-7-1986 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). On the other hand the management in its counter affidavit has blown at most hot and cold together by admitting in one breath this contention and in the next breath contending that the intimation of vacancy was sent on 12-5-86 (Annexure-CA-11) by post under certificate of posting. The two annexures are photo copies of two different documents with just the same contents. The effect shall be considered later. By these so called letters the management purports to have informed the District Inspector of Schools that there were five vacancies three in the L. T. grade and two in C. T. grade in the institution out of which one was to be filled by promotion for which proposal had already been sent and there was a likelihood of the filling in by ad-hoc promotion. For the rest there wens no hopes and consequently it was requested two asstt. teachers each in L.T. and C,T. grade be appointed or in the alternative the management be permitted to appoint the same. Receipt of any of the above letters has been denied by the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 2, in his counter affidavit.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that after the latter dated 11-7- 1986, the management proceeded to select the appointees and on 12- 8-87, his selection was approved by the management (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) on 14-8-87 he was given appointment letter and he joined the school as an Assistant Teacher. THE management sent letter dated 18-9-87 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and financial sanction which has been turned by the District Inspector of Schools by the impugned letter dated 14-2-89. THE petitioner has, however, been working in the school and paid salary under the cover of order dated 16-3-89 of this court. Although, generally disputed questions of fact are not gone into in the writ jurisdiction but sometimes it becomes necessary to do it. The petition can neither be allowed nor dismissed ignoring the assertions of either party in the matter of intimation of vacancy as a fact and once the petition has been entertained, ignoring the alternative remedy under the Act, it has to be gone into in order to ascertain true facts and arrive at the correct conclusion;