- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dent Nos. 1 and 4.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioner has by means of the present writ petition approached this Court seeking a direction requiring the respondents which include besides the District In spector of Schools, Mirzapur and State of U. P. through Collector, Mirzapur, the Com mittee of Management, Maharana Pratap Adarsh Inter College Sati Dhampuria, Chunar as well as the Principal of the said college, requiring them to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Peon month to month as and when it falls due together with the arrears with effect from 9-10-1996. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. Maharana Pratap Adarsh Inter College', Sati Dham Raipuria, Chunar, district Mirzapur is an educational institution which stands recognised under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This institution also falls within the purview of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) It is asserted that a vacancy in the post of a peon in the college became available for being filled up on ac count of promotion and when the informa tion in regard to this availability of the vacancy for being filled up was sent by the management to the District Inspector of Schools with a request for granting permis sion to fill up the same, the District Inspec tor of Schools issued an order on 10-9-1996 approving of the promotion and permitting the filling up of the resultant vacancy in the post of a peon in the next below cadre sub ject to the conditions that the appointment be made in accordance with the relevant rules and orders in regard to the reserva tions. It is further asserted that on the strength of the aforesaid order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Principal of the college who is the appointing authority for the post of a peon placed a notice on the notice board of the college on 15-9-1996 inviting applications for appoint ment on the post of peon. This mode of advertisement adopted by the Principal of the college could attract only four persons including the petitioner who submitted his application for appointment on the post of peon in the college. It is claimed that an interview was held on 4-10-1996 wherein the petitioner was found to be most suitable candidate and the petitioner who belonged to a backward class was selected for appoint ment on the post in question. The principal vide his order dated 4-10-1996 appointed the petitioner as the Peon filling up the vacancy, pursuant to the appointment let ter, the petitioner was allowed to join the post 9- 10-1996. It is claimed that with effect from 9th October, 1996, the petitioner has continuously been working as peon in the college but even though all the papers in regard to the selection proceedings had been submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, he was not being paid any salary even though the District Inspector of Schools has not passed any order disapprov ing the appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) ON 20th March, 1997, the petitioner moved an application seeking various amendments in the writ petition asserting that there is no provision under the Inter mediate Education Act or the Regulations framed there under requiring any approval regarding appointment of a person on a post filling in class IV. It was further asserted that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act does not con template that after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval for filling up the vacancy any further approval regarding the appointment was necessary or required. It is also asserted that Section 16-E of the Act provides for recruitment of only teacher and head of institution but there is no provision in the Act authorising the fram ing of any regulations regulating the recruit ment for filling up the post falling in class IV in a college recognised under the provision of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. It was also claimed that the provisions con tained in Section 16-G of the Act only provided for framing of regulations govern ing the service conditions and could not regulate the recruitment of a class III or class IV employee, emphasising that expres sion "recruitment" and conditions of service are not synonimous and could not be treated to be one and the same thing and they convey different meanings. It was as serted that Regulation 101 of the Regula tions contained in Chapter II of the Regula tions framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act deals with recruitment only and could not be taken to be a condition of service and since the Regulation 101 in question had been framed in exercise of the power under Section 16-F of the Act, was beyond the scope and power to frame regulation under Section 16-G of the Act. It was also asserted that the provisions as con tained in Regulation 101 of the aforesaid regulations is inderogation of and in con flict with Regulation 10 of Chapter I of the Regulations and was liable to be ignored. ON the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner claimed in the alternative that the Regula tions 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediates Education Act be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel repre senting the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has opposed the writ petition asserting that taking into consideration the various provisions contained in the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and the scheme underlying the aforesaid Act, the provisions contained in Regulations 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act prescribing the prior approval of an appointment from the District Inspector of Schools and prohibit ing the filling up of vacancy contemplated therein without obtaining the prior ap proval in respect of the proposed appoint ment does not suffer from any such legal infirmity as contended by the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no justifiable ground has been made out for the inssuance of writ of man damus or a writ of the like nature as claimed by the petitioner.;