- (1.) Sri Krishna is before this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 27.7.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah-respondent no.3. He has further prayed for direction to the respondents to promote him on the Class-III Post (Clerk) in the institution in the light of judgements in Jai Bhagwan Singh vs.District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar and ors, 2006 9 ADJ 292 and Subhash Chandra Verma vs. State of UP and ors, 2012 4 UPLBEC 3271 with effect from 31.7.2010, with all consequential benefits.
(2.) As per record, this much is reflected that the petitioner is working as Class-IV employee in Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ramyan, Bharthana, Etawah (in short, the institution), which is recognized and aided institution and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short 1921 Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder and Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 are applicable to the institution in question. In the institution in question, there is only one sanctioned post of Class-III, which was fallen vacant on 31.7.2010 on the retirement of Shri Ram Chandra Mishra. The petitioner is claiming promotion from Class-IV to Class-III in view of Regulation 2 (2) of Chapter-III of 1921 Act and in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar and others, 2006 9 ADJ 292. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred Writ-A No. 26261 of 2011 (Shri Krishna v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by this Court on 12th May, 2011 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider his claim. In compliance of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools had proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was single post and on a single post no roster rule could be applicable. In addition, he had also observed that the Manager of the institution during hearing stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was also not satisfactory. The petitioner had again preferred Writ-A No. 50910 of 2011 (Shrikrishna v. State of U.P. and others), which was allowed by this Court on 19th May, 2015 with following observations:- "From the perusal of the paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the Management has not mentioned any specific facts which goes against the petitioner. There is no averment that the petitioner has ever been punished or he was subjected to any disciplinary proceeding merely balled statement that the employee was not found suitable is not enough to deny for his promotion. After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools is unsustainable for the reasons stated hereinabove. The order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter a fresh and the law laid down in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the Committee of Management expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of the communication of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
(3.) Shri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the management could not give any specific reason or material before the Court, which could establish that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto mark and he was not eligible for promotion on the post of Class-III in the institution. He further makes submission that neither the petitioner was punished nor subjected to any disciplinary proceedings and merely on the bald statement, the claim of the petitioner has been denied and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve to the petitioner.;