O.P. Garg, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the order dated 9.12.1988 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.'), Kanpur Dehat be quashed and the respondents be directed not to create any hindrance in the functioning of the petitioner on the post of Daftari in Adarsh Kisan Higher Secondary School. Hanse Mau, Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri J. N. Varma, learned counsel for the petition and Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 as well as the learned standing counsel on behalf of the D.I.O.S., Kanpur Dehat.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a vacancy on the post of Daftari had fallen vacant in the institution, known as Adarsh Kisan Higher Secondary School. Hanse Mau, Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat. The petitioner who was working on the post of Peon, having been appointed by Committee of Management in the year 1982, was promoted on the post Daftari and a proposal for approval of his appointment on promotion as Daftari was sent to D.I.O.S., Kanpur Dehat on 3.12.1985. The requisite approval was granted by the D.I.O.S. on 5.3.1986 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Respondent No. 3-Vidya Sagar, who is also a Peon in the same institution, challenged the appointment of the petitioner as Daftari and made a representation to the D.I.O.S. on 30.3.1986. The representation of the respondent No. 3-Vidya Sagar was allowed and by order dated 9.12.1988 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Daftari was cancelled and it was directed that the respondent No. 3--Vidya Sagar shall be appointed on the post of Daftari in the pay scale of Rs. 315-440 on the ground that respondent No. 3 was senior to the petitioner as he was appointed on 1.7.1981 while the petitioner was appointed as Peon on 5.10.1982. It is this order dated 9.12.1988. which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Daftari as there were certain complaints against him and adverse remarks were Incorporated in his service record ; that he was only a Vth class pass while according to the petitioner, he had appeared in the High School Examination and after perusing his service record, the Committee of Management has promoted him on the post of Daftari. It was also urged that the D.I.O.S., Kanpur Dehat having once granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner, had no authority or jurisdiction to cancel or review the said order and, therefore, the impugned order dated 9.12.1988 is illegal.;