- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dents No. 1 and 2.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 28-1-92 whereunder disap proving the proceedings relating to the ap pointment of the petitioner on the post of Daftari falling in class I Vth and setting aside his appointment, the appointing authority was informed that the vacancy available in class IVth cadre shall be filled up only in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government vide its letter dated 23-9-1981 by appointing an eligible dependent of an employee who had died while in service as provided thereunder. The petitioner claims that a substan tive vacancy in the post of Daftari had be come available for the filing up whereof proceedings were initiated by the appoint ing authority vide the advertisement dated 16-8-1990. In the selection held by the ap pointing authority on 1-10-1990, the petitioner was found to be most suitable candidate for being appointed and he was granted an appointment in the post of Daftari on a period of probation of one year on 1-10-1990 and has been continuously dis charging the duties attached to that post to the satisfaction of the appointing authority who vide the order dated 3- 10-1991 con firmed him on the said post. However, the District Inspector of Schools under the im pugned order disapproved the entire proceedings.
(3.) THE petitioner asserts that the im pugned order is totally without jurisdiction as the District Inspector of Schools had no authority either to approve or disapprove an appointment as against a vacancy in a post falling in class IVth. It has also been asserted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order. It has also been alleged that there was no person who had claimed any appointment on the ground of being a dependent of an employee of a person employed in the institution where the vacancy had occurred. In that view of the matter, it is urged that the order issued by the State Government could not come in the way of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the claim of the petitioner has been opposed asserting that since the appointment of the petitioner had not been approved by the District In spector of Schools, the petitioner had no right to continue to hold the post or claim any salary on that basis. It has furthe2 been asserted that the claim of the dependent of an employee dying in harness for compas sionate appointment had to be considered first and he had to be adjusted against the available vacancy and in this view of the matter also the appointing authority, in the presence of the direction issued by the State Government in this connection had no jurisdiction to either initiate the proceed ings for the appointment or to appoint any person against the available vacancy without first ascertaining as to whether there was any person claiming an appoint ment on compassionate ground. The contesting respondents have also asserted that the list of the dependents of the person dying in harness employed in the recognised institutions falling within the purview of the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 functioning in the district is maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and if any vacancy occurs in any intermediate college or High School of the category as indicated above, the District Inspector of Schools recommends the name of the dependent for the appointment.;