Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. - (1.) Petitioners in the present writ petition have earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No.12642 of 2007 (Santosh Singh and others Vs. State of UP), challenging the order dated 13.12.2006 whereby the financial approval to the selection of the petitioners as Class-IV employees at the respondent's college was declined. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following observation and directions:- "I further find from the discussion part coming in the impugned order that the District Inspector of Schools has not been able to give any cogent and convincing finding as to how 13 vacancies come to be recorded as sanctioned strength of Group D positions even as per the financial Survey 1988-89 if in the subsequent report of the year 2008, the District Inspector of Schools has come to record that there were 14 posts sanctioned. Such findings by District Inspector of Schools must have been after due verification. However, in the present impugned order he does not state as to what is the source of the verification. It is clearly established that the financial survey is not ultimate verdict on the question of the sanctioned strength. Sanctioned strength means is the strength sanctioned by the State Government or by the Competent Authority. The financial survey subsequently carried out is only relating to the strength of the students and requirement but by that the real sanctioned strength cannot be washed away and the District Inspector of Schools is hide bound in law to record categorical findings of fact regarding sanctioned strength. Apart from this, the District Inspector of Schools has come to consider that there were at least 6 sanctioned posts available then the entire selection cannot go. On the date of consideration of approval, he has to consider whether the persons who have been selected and whose appointment is proposed can be appointed in the Institution or not unless and until he comes to record a finding that there were serious procedural flaw in the selection procedure and that selection process was do hors the rules and that selection was violating the procedure in matter of public employment being offered to the principles authorized under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In absence of any such findings being recorded, the District Inspector of Schools ought to have considered the present strength of Group-'D' positions in the Institutions even going by the factor of 13 as determined by him in the impugned order. In view of the fact that the subsequent report, 2008 records that there were only class-III employee working in the Institution, I am of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools while considering the question of approval shall take pragmatic view of the entire circumstances of the case prevailing at present. The question of prior approval for the purposes of recruitment in selection and the constitution of Selection Committee having been answered in affirmative in favour of the petitioners, I am while quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 13th December, 2006 remitting the matter for the limited consideration on the issue of sanctioned strength only. The District Inspector of Schools shall reconsider the matter and shall verify the records as to what is the exact sanctioned strength of the Group-D employees in the Institution. He will also consider as to what number of employee is actually working in the Institution. In case, he finds that there are sufficient vacancies, he shall consider the question of granting approval to the petitioners from that angle as well. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is allowed." (emphasis supplied)
(2.) In compliance of above-mentioned order dated 21.05.2018, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated 26.10.2018 declined to grant approval of the petitioners as well as of three other persons (Petitioners in the connected Writ Petition No.6048 of 2019, Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others)on the post of Class IV employees. The said order is under challenge in both the writ petition.
(3.) Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this Court vide order dated 21.05.2018 has directed the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter only on the limited issue to verify the record as to what is the exact strength of the Group D employees in the Institution. However, the respondent - DIOS has travelled beyond the said direction and declined the approval of petitioners and others on the ground that the appointment on the post of Class-IV in such colleges have to be made only by way of outsourcing. The other ground for rejection is Janshakti (Student-Teacher ratio) dated 22.02.2013.;