Ran Vijay Singh - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.9.1994 by which the services of the petitioners as Class-IV employee have been terminated by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the D.I.O.S. has orally refused to approve the services of the petitioners as no prior approval was obtained for making appointment.
(2.) SRI D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners appointments were made by the competent authority, i.e., the Principal of the Institution after advertising the vacancies and for holding the selection of Class-IV employees no prior approval of D.I.O.S. as recorded by the Principal of the college was necessary if the appointment was made prior to 30.6.1992. Otherwise also in case of Class-IV employee approval of District Inspector of School is not necessary only financial concurrence is required. In his submissions the services of the petitioners should not have been terminated on these grounds. He has further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has been discriminated by the authorities as on the strength of interim order passed by this Court on 30.9.1994, the service of the petitioner No. 2 has been approved and he is getting salary whereas in the case of petitioner No. 1 the respondents have not passed such order. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel submits that the petitioners appointment were made against non-sanctioned post, therefore, the question of approval does not arise. In his further submissions there is nothing on record to indicate that the selection has been made after adopting normal procedure of selection for appointment on a post where salary is payable through State exchequer.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel has also submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the State of U. P. through Secretary Madhyamik Education, U. P. Government, Lucknow has not been impleaded as a necessary party. I have heard Sri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents. The case as set up in the writ petition by the petitioner is that according to the norms for sanctioning the posts on the increasing number of students ten posts of peon were required to be sanctioned but only six peons were working, therefore, to cope with the need of the hour petitioners appointment were made by the respondent No. 4 after advertising the vacancies.;