- (1.) Petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Peon at Pandit Hanumat Dutta Tripathi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Keshav Nagar, Ismailganj, Allahabad. It has been contended that his appointment was approved on 28.11.2006 by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. Petitioner has contended that he is having educational qualification upto Intermediate. Petitioner has detailed out the fact that there is only one post of Junior Clerk in the said institution where classes are running up to High School. Said sole post of Clerk of the institution fell vacant on account of attaining the superannuation by one Onkar Nath Shukla on 31.12.2006. Petitioner has contended that in the institution in question he was the only employee in the institution entitled to be promoted as such his claim for promotion is liable to be considered as said post falls within promotion quota. Petitioner has contended that he has been requesting for according promotion to the petitioner. Petitioner has contended that in stead of considering the claim of the petitioner for being accorded promotion the District Inspector of Schools has passed order dated 28.11.2006 directing adjustment of Laxmi Narain Pathak as Clerk in the institution.
(2.) On presentation of present writ petition before this Court, this Court passed following order which is being quoted below: "The Associate District Inspector of Schools Allahabad is present on behalf of District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. A statement has been made on his behalf by the learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 28th November, 2006 has been issued in ignorance of the fact that there is only one Class-III post sanctioned in Pandit Hanumat Dutta Tripathi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Keshav Nagar, Ismailganj, Allahabad. Since there is one Class -III post sanctioned, is to be filled by way of promotion in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Gautambudh Nagar and others (2006 ADJ (9) 292 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68636 of 2005 decided on 27th April 2006. It has been stated that appropriate orders correcting the mistake so committed shall be issued within one week from today. It has been further stated that rights of Laxmi Niwas Pathak who is working as Clerk on compassionate ground against supernumerary post, shall not be jeopardised in any manner. In view of the said statement no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is disposed of finally."
(3.) Against the said order dated 13.02.2007 Special Appeal No. 227 (Defective) of 2007 has been filed and therein on 14.03.2007 following order has been passed which is being quoted below: "1.Heard Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. The contesting respondent 4 represented by one Shri B.R. Yadav has also been heard as well as the learned standing counsel. 2.The case of the appellant is that on the demise of his father he was appointed on a Class-III post in a school on a post created as a supernumerary post by way of compassionate appointment. Subsequently on a regular vacancy occurring in Pandit Hanumat Dutta Tripathi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya he was shifted over there and it is his case that he joined over there on 1.2.2007. 3.Thereafter the respondent No. 4 appears to have filed a writ petition claiming that he is entitled to that post by way of promotion since, i.e., there is only a single post and that he is an employee in that very school. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition of respondent No. 4 which has been done without notice to the appellant though while observing that the rights of the appellant will not be affected. The appellant has challenged that order, he wants to know where he should work. That is not clear from the order of the learned Single Judge and that is not passed without considering his difficulties. 4.In the circumstances for the only reason that the impugned order is an ex-parte order, we set aside and restore the petition to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge will examine the submissions of the respondent No.4, the appellant and of the Government and decide as to where the respondent no. 4 as well as the appellant ought to work. In the meanwhile the appellant will continue to work in Pandit Hanumat Dutta Tripathi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. We request the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the restored petition at his earliest preferably within eight weeks. The certified copy of the order has been filed and the appeal be numbered.";