MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE relief claimed in both these writ petitions is for quashing of the order dated 27/29.11.1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, whereby the dispute relating to legality and validity of appointment of Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (respondent no.2 in writ petition no. 8265 of 1993 and respondent no.3 in writ petition no. 55449 of 2004; hereinafter referred to as the ''private respondent' ) was decided, holding his appointment as Assistant Clerk in the institution to be valid and for mandamus restraining the State -respondents from paying salary to the private respondent and declare his appointment as null and void.
(2.) THE case has a chequered history. The private respondent was appointed as Assistant Clerk on 30.12.1986 in Ganga Deen Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh, Barwan, Jaunpur (for short referred to as ''the Institution'), a recognised institution under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is receiving grant -in -aid from the State Government and the provisions of Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 is applicable to it. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 3.6.1987 granted approval to the said appointment.
(3.) SOON thereafter, Sri Ram Nihore Chaturvedi, President of the then Committee of Management made a complaint dated 2.7.1987 to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur alleging gross irregularities in appointment of the private respondent as Assistant Clerk. It was alleged that Sri Laxmi Narayan Dwivedi, father of the private respondent being the Principal of the Institution, the appointment of the private respondent was invalid; that there was no post in existence against which any appointment could have been made; all the papers were fraudulently prepared by the Principal, Sri Laxmi Narayan Dwivedi in collusion with Sri Arjun Mishra, the then Manager; and approval was obtained by playing fraud on the authorities. Taking cognizance of the complaint, the District Inspector of Schools vide its letter dated 8.2.1988 called upon the Manager of the Institution to clarify whether the private respondent is son of the Principal and in case the private respondent is son of the Principal, his appointment be cancelled, failing which the entire responsibility will be that of the management. It seems that the Manager in order to avoid any adverse order being passed by the authorities, himself proceeded to pass an order dated 12.2.1988, terminating the services of the private respondent. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the private respondent before this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition no.3135 of 1988, which was allowed by judgement dated 25.2.1992 on the ground that the termination was in breach of principles of natural justice. It was held that the District Inspector of Schools was seized of the enquiry in relation to the complaint made by the President, therefore liberty was granted to the District Inspector of Schools to complete the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and take decision in accordance with law, within three months.;