ABHEY PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an educational institution known as Swami Purnanand Inter College, Chirodi, Bulandshahr, one Karan Singh, a Lecturer retired on 30.6.1991 and after his retirement one Raghuraj was promoted on an adhoc basis on the post of a Lecturer. Consequently, the post of an Assistant Teacher fell vacant and this vacancy, being a short term vacancy, could not be filled up by way of promotion. The said vacancy was duly notified to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr on 6.5.1995. It further transpires that on 24.8.1996 an advertisement was also made in the newspapers, which had a wide circulation and a selection committee met on 34.8.1996 in which the petitioner's name was recommended and subsequently, the committee of management issued a letter of appointment dated 25.8.1996. On this basis, the petitioner joined on 27.8.1996. The Committee of Management, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr for approval.

(2.) The promotion of Raghuraj Singh on the post of Lecturer on adhoc basis was objected and challenged by one Sukhbir and eventually on 6.10.1999 it was held that Sukhbir Singh was entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer on the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri Karan Singh. The controversy came to a rest finally and the committee of management by a resolution dated 27.2.2000 promoted Sri Sukhbir Singh as a Lecturer.

(3.) According to the District Inspector of Schools, the papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner was forwarded on 9.6.2000 after the dispute between Raghuraj Singh and Sukhbir Singh came to an end. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the papers relating to his appointment for approval were sent much earlier and when no orders was being passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54722 of 1999, which was disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter with regard to his appointment. Based the direction of the court, the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 19.2.2001 rejected the representation of the petitioner and refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that though the appointment of the petitioner was made on 15.8.1996, but the papers relating to the grant of approval was sent only on 19.6.2000 and that the advertisement was only made in one newspaper, which did not have a wide circulation and that it only had a circulation upto the district level.