B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE appellants preferred the writ petition, which has given rise to this Special Appeal, claiming payment of salary as Peon in an Intermediate College, which is duly recognised and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder read with U.P. Act No. 14 of 1974 (Payment of Salary Act). The claim was founded on the strength of letters of appointment which are annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. The said letters of appointment are stated to have been issued by the Principal of the institution, who is the Appointment Authority. The matter was taken up by the District Inspector of Schools at the time of grant of financial sanction on which a query was raised by the District Inspector of Schools calling upon the Principal to furnish the documents including the relevant certificates which were necessary for the purposes of verifying the correctness or otherwise of the qualifications of the candidates as claimed by them and further to verify as to whether their candidatures were valid or not.
(2.) LATER on, it transpires that the Committee of Management of the institution raised some objections with regard to the appointments of the appellants, upon which the Principal of the institution sent a letter dated 10th December, 1991 withdrawing the recommendations of the appointments of the appellants and made a request to the District Inspector of Schools not to grant approval. The District Inspector of Schools, thereupon, passed the order dated 30.01.1992 (Annex.4). The writ petition has been filed thereafter in May, 1992 claiming payment of salary with effect from the dates of their joining. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools wherein it was stated that the certificate which was relied upon by one of the appellants was forged and this fact has been stated in paragaph 8 of the counter affidavit of Jagdish Prasad Gupta, the Camp Assistant who has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. The same was, however, denied in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit and certain explanations were given.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, refused to go into these questions and opined that the appellants, who are claiming salary as Class IV employees, have alternative and efficacious remedy by approaching the Labour Court under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and ultimately, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.;