ARUN TANDON J. - (1.) The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge impugned in Special Appeal No. 161 of 2015 dated 18.7.2012, in our opinion, proceeds on complete non-consideration of the effect of the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 1/3.5.1999. The learned Single Judge has recorded that under the order dated 1/3.5.1999 the appointment of petitioner, Amod Kumar Sharma, was found to be in accordance with the Rules when on reading of the said order we find that a categorical finding has been returned that the teachers in excess of the sanction post had been appointed in the Institution and that as per the direction of the Director, Madhyamik, U.P. dated 31.1.1998 excess seven teachers of the Institution were required to be removed. The operative part of the letter dated 1/3.5.1999 reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(2.) In our opinion, the minimum required was to have insisted upon the authorities concerned to first determine as to who were the teachers who were appointed in excess of the sanctioned strength having regard to the date of sanction of the posts and the date of appointment of the teacher concerned.
(3.) We further find that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the order impugned in the writ petition dated 10.5.2006 and dated 12.5.2006 has returned a categorical finding that the appointment as claimed by the writ-petitioner, Amod Kumar Sharma had been made after following the procedure prescribed under the statutory Rules applicable, namely, Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Rules, 1978 and that the appointment of petitioner, Amod Kumar Sharma, was in excess of the sanctioned post.;