Mohammad Hasnain Khan v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and consequential order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent - Institution.

3. One post of Class-IV fell vacant on 03.01.2005 due to retirement of Mohd. Bismillah Khan working as Chowkidar in the 3rd respondent institution. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent advertised the said post in daily newspapers Dainik Jagran and Hindustan Times on 07.09.2005. In fact, the 3rd respondent sought prior permission from the 2nd respondent vide his letters dated 19.04.2005 as well as 22.08.2005. When there was no response from the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent waited for almost ten months. After that, the 3rd respondent advertised the said post.

4. The petitioner was subjected to selection process. As he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Chowkidar, he was selected and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 10.12.2005. Accordingly, he joined in the said post on 12.12.2005 onwards. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent sent appointment letter to the 2nd respondent for grant of the financial approval vide letter dated 13.12.2005. The said request was refused by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 15.12.2005 by raising six objections/grounds. In fact, the 3rd respondent has submitted a detailed reply to the grounds mentioned in the letter dated 15.12.2005 of the 2nd 2 WRIA No. 62089 of 2015 respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2005. Without considering explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected the financial approval to the petitioner vide order dated 09.01.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.7841 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2009 with the following observations: "It transpires from the records that initially the District Inspector of Schools had refused to grant financial approval for six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005. However, the Principal of the College had sent a communication dated 28th December, 2005 giving explanation in respect of each of the six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005 but subsequently by the order dated 9th January, 2006, the District Inspector of Schools has merely reiterated the earlier order dated 15th December, 2005 in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003. It is, therefore, clear that the District Inspector of Schools has not dealt with any of the explanation submitted by the Principal of the College in the communication dated 28th December, 2005. The order also does not indicate as to how the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003 would be applicable. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 9th January, 2006 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The District Inspector of Schools shall now pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply sent by the Principal of the College on 28th December, 2005."

5. Consequent to the above said orders, the 2nd respondent has once again rejected for grant of the financial approval to the petitioner vide order dated

31.03.2010 on the some other grounds.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in fact, the 2nd respondent has raised six objections in his letter dated

15.12.2005 and the said objections were explained by the 3rd respondent in his letter dated 28.12.2005. The 2nd respondent has not considered the said explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court interdicted the order dated 09.01.2006 and remanded the matter with the specific directions to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to pass appropriate orders after considering reply sent by the Principal of the college on 28.12.2005. But surprisingly, instead of considering the explanation 3 WRIA No. 62089 of 2015 submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's claim on some other ground that is totally contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above said orders.

8. After notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, in paragraph no.5 whereof, surprisingly the 2nd respondent has taken stand that there are seven posts of Class-IV sanctioned to the 3rd respondent - institution as against seven persons are working including one appointment made on

24.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible or entitled for grant of payment of salary.

9. On considering the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is surprisingly strange that as the petitioner was appointed in 2005 in clear vacancy and the said appointment was sent to the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected for grant of the approval on six grounds and despite submission of the explanation of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected grant of financial approval. Therefore, this Court interfered with the said decision and remanded the matter for consideration of the approval only based on the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005. In the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent has no authority to deviate from the said observations. Further, this Court finds strange averments made in paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit stating that seven posts were filled up including one post filled up in 2015, rejecting the petitioner's appointment which was made in 2005.

10. Considering the submissions, averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.7841 of 2006 on

09.04.2009, the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi is set aside, remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent once again directing him to consider the appointment of the petitioner for financial approval only considering the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 16, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and consequential order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent - Institution.

3. One post of Class-IV fell vacant on 03.01.2005 due to retirement of Mohd. Bismillah Khan working as Chowkidar in the 3rd respondent institution. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent advertised the said post in daily newspapers Dainik Jagran and Hindustan Times on 07.09.2005. In fact, the 3rd respondent sought prior permission from the 2nd respondent vide his letters dated 19.04.2005 as well as 22.08.2005. When there was no response from the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent waited for almost ten months. After that, the 3rd respondent advertised the said post.

4. The petitioner was subjected to selection process. As he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Chowkidar, he was selected and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 10.12.2005. Accordingly, he joined in the said post on 12.12.2005 onwards. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent sent appointment letter to the 2nd respondent for grant of the financial approval vide letter dated 13.12.2005. The said request was refused by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 15.12.2005 by raising six objections/grounds. In fact, the 3rd respondent has submitted a detailed reply to the grounds mentioned in the letter dated 15.12.2005 of the 2nd 2 WRIA No. 62089 of 2015 respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2005. Without considering explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected the financial approval to the petitioner vide order dated 09.01.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.7841 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2009 with the following observations: "It transpires from the records that initially the District Inspector of Schools had refused to grant financial approval for six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005. However, the Principal of the College had sent a communication dated 28th December, 2005 giving explanation in respect of each of the six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005 but subsequently by the order dated 9th January, 2006, the District Inspector of Schools has merely reiterated the earlier order dated 15th December, 2005 in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003. It is, therefore, clear that the District Inspector of Schools has not dealt with any of the explanation submitted by the Principal of the College in the communication dated 28th December, 2005. The order also does not indicate as to how the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003 would be applicable. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 9th January, 2006 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The District Inspector of Schools shall now pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply sent by the Principal of the College on 28th December, 2005."

5. Consequent to the above said orders, the 2nd respondent has once again rejected for grant of the financial approval to the petitioner vide order dated

31.03.2010 on the some other grounds.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in fact, the 2nd respondent has raised six objections in his letter dated

15.12.2005 and the said objections were explained by the 3rd respondent in his letter dated 28.12.2005. The 2nd respondent has not considered the said explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court interdicted the order dated 09.01.2006 and remanded the matter with the specific directions to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to pass appropriate orders after considering reply sent by the Principal of the college on 28.12.2005. But surprisingly, instead of considering the explanation 3 WRIA No. 62089 of 2015 submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's claim on some other ground that is totally contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above said orders.

8. After notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, in paragraph no.5 whereof, surprisingly the 2nd respondent has taken stand that there are seven posts of Class-IV sanctioned to the 3rd respondent - institution as against seven persons are working including one appointment made on

24.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible or entitled for grant of payment of salary.

9. On considering the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is surprisingly strange that as the petitioner was appointed in 2005 in clear vacancy and the said appointment was sent to the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected for grant of the approval on six grounds and despite submission of the explanation of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected grant of financial approval. Therefore, this Court interfered with the said decision and remanded the matter for consideration of the approval only based on the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005. In the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent has no authority to deviate from the said observations. Further, this Court finds strange averments made in paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit stating that seven posts were filled up including one post filled up in 2015, rejecting the petitioner's appointment which was made in 2005.

10. Considering the submissions, averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.7841 of 2006 on

09.04.2009, the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi is set aside, remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent once again directing him to consider the appointment of the petitioner for financial approval only considering the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 16, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad