- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. It is alleged that the petitioners' appointment was approved by an order dated 24-6-94 which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition but without afford ing any opportunity to them the approval of appointment was confirmed by an order dated 29-9- 94 which is Annexure 14 to the writ petition in which the names of the petitioners were omitted. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners have filed this peti tion alleging that the alleged enquiry, on the basis whereof names of the petitioners were omitted, was held without affording opportunity to them and that too by Probation Officer who is not authorised to decide the question.
(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Shambhoo Nath Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners it is the District Social Wel fare Officer who is the competent authority to decide the same, therefore, the said order is wholly without any authority and jurisdiction and as such void. He also contends that even on merit the finding that the petitioners were not appointed in the school is perverse. The allegation that the petitioners are relation of the Committee of Management would not stand in the way of appointment in the concerned school where there is no bar in such appointment. It is also alleged that it was not ascertained as to which Commit tee of Management the petitioners were related. He further points out that pur suant to the order passed by this Court on 16-11-94 the District Social Welfare Of ficer had decided the representation of the petitioners rejecting their claim which is Annexure 20 to the writ petition but the same does not give any reason despite specific direction given by this court that the order should be a reasoned one. Mr. Srivastava, elaborated his con tention on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioners as well as on the question of perversity and the question of competence of the District Probation Officer. Mr. Saba jit Yadav, learned Stand ing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, points out from the counter-affidavit that enquiry was held after giving opportunity to the petitioners and that on record it appears that some of the petitioners were related to the members of the Committee of Management, details whereof have been specified in the counter-affidavit. He also contends that from the record itself it is apparent, particularly in the attendance register that the petitioners, were not working, even on the spot inspection they were not found and therefore there is no infirmity in the enquiry. He further sub mits that District Probation Officer has not passed the order, he had held enquiry at the instance of the competent authority, therefore, the question of competency raised by Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be sustained. According to him the material produced does not show any infirmity or perversity in the enquiry report or 'in the orders passed.
(3.) MR. Navin Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 sup ports the contention of MR. Yadav and points out from paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by him detailing the relations of the petitioners. He also con tends that there is no want of competence in the facts and circumstances of the case as is revealed from the record. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. From the counter-affidavit it appears that specific allegations have been made in respect of some of the petitioners that they were relation to some of the members of the Committee of Manage ment as well as that some of the petitioners were working in different capacity at different places namely, one was working as Teshildar at the relevant point of time and two others were working in different other schools at the relevant points of time. The enquiry report also shows that on spot verifications the petitioners were not found and that in the attendance register and other record of the Schools the names of the petitioners were not available and it was found that they were not working. The enquiry was held some time in 1993 and the attendance register was examined in July 93 but the Manager had sent the relevant papers on 15-7-94.;