- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This special Appeal under Chap ter VIII rule 5 of the High Court Rules has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02-07-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2001 (S/s) - Ram Dhari Bharti and others Vs. The Director of Education (Secondary) U. P at Allahabad and others whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the petition.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is admitted to the parties that a writ petition was filed before the learned single Judge for the following reliefs : (i) issue a suitable writ, order or di rection in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the impugned or ders dated 16/1.0007-1998 and the order dated 31-8-1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun and the Principal of Government Intermediate College, Quansi, district Dehradun respec tively; (ii) issue a suitable writ, order or di rection in the nature of mandamus commanding the re spondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the peti tioners as Class IV employee in their respective Government Inter mediate College situated within Uttarakhand Region and also fur ther ensure arrears of salary and current salary to the petitioner in accordance with the law. (iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case and (iv) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner throughout. The appellant was appointed to Group 'd' post of Peon on adhoc basis by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Quansi (Dehradun) vide order dated 11-01-1997. The serv ices of the appellant were subsequently regularized in the scale of Rs. 750.00 to Rs. 940.00 by means of order dated 2.0009-1997 passed by the District Inspec tor of Schools, Dehradun. Pursuant to the regularization order dated 2.0009-1997 the appellant joined duties as regu lar employee in the Government Higher Secondary School, Quansi on 29-09-1997 and thereafter he was transferred by the D. I. O. S. on 12-12-1997 to the Government Higher Secondary School, Paundha. Thereafter he was transferred to other places. A complaint was made to the District Magistrate, Dehradun against the appointment of the appellant and thereafter the D. I. O. S. , Dehradun cancelled the appointment of the appel lant
(3.) THE petitioner pleaded in his pe tition that the cancellation order passed by the D. I. O. S. did not indicate the rea son for cancellation of the appointment of the appellant and it was further pleaded that no opportunity of hearing, whatsoever, was given to the appellant at any stage while canceling his appoint ment, as such, the order of cancellation of the appointment of the appellant was patently illegal and, thus, can not be sustained in the eyes of law. THE re spondent had filed the counter affidavit in which they had stated that in the gov ernment orders it was clearly mentioned that prior to making any direct appoint ment on the post of Class 'd' category the names of legible candidates must be called from the Employment Exchange and it is also mentioned that without fol lowing the procedure none of the ap pointment would be made. It was fur ther pleaded that in the present case the Principal had not adhered to the Gov ernment Orders issued in this behalf prior to making of the appointment of the appellant. His appointment was ini tially illegal and his appointment was made against the government orders, as such, no right had been conferred upon him for getting the regularization. His services could not have been regularized. The learned Single Judge had held that the appointment of the appel lant was made against the government orders. The appellant was illegally regu larized, therefore, ti,3 appointment of the appellant was rightly cancelled by the D. I. O. S. Since the order of appointment as well as of the regularization of the appellant was void being against the government orders, therefore, it was nonest in the eyes of law and to rectify the same no opportunity was required to be given. The learned Single Judge fur ther held that even if the opportunity would have been afforded to the appel lant, the appellant could not have set out any case for the setting aside of the cancellation order as they could not deny successfully that the government orders were not followed in his appoint ment and regularization. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.;