High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77189-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 141 of 2025 Appellant :- Narendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the writ filed against the order of District Inspector of Schools, Hathras, dated 06.07.2018. 2. The facts of the present case are some what unusual. The appellant was appointed on a class IV post in the year 1998 in Kanya Inter College, Sasni, Hathras. The appointment of the appellant was also approved on 03.11.1998. At the time of appointment of the appellant, his father was the head clerk in the same institution. The father of the appellant already went on leave and the clerk working in the institution was promoted on officiating basis to the post of head clerk. Against the resultant short term vacancy on the post of assistant clerk the appellant was appointed. This appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The father of the appellant never returned apparently with an intent to help his son get an appointment on class III post. This situation continued for several years till a complaint was made by another class IV employee who informed the authorities that the appellant had obtained fraudulent appointment in collusion with his own father in the institution concerned. The District Inspector of Schools has examined the complaint and found that there was no vacancy created in the institution when the appellant was appointed to the post of assistant clerk. The father of the appellant who apparently had gone on leave has received salary till he attained the age of superannuation. Thus there was no vacancy caused. This finding is not under challenge. Once that be so the very claim of appellant for appointment against a short term vacancy is nothing but a manipulation based on collusion with his own father.
Decision
3. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, has set aside the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of class III post. The writ petition filed against such order has also failed. Learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under: "9. The manner of appointment of the petitioner and that within very short period, post became substantive are factors which are sufficient to hold that it was a plan by father-son duo.(See Sarita Gupta vs DIOS Firozabad C.M.W.P No 8286 of 2000 decided on 14.02.2005) 10. Otherwise also initial appointment was de hors of legal provisions and Ld counsel for state has rightly made reference of para 7 of the counter affidavit, which is reproduced herein after and that it was vaguely denied or replied in rejoinder affidavit. No substantial document in support of a contention that selection process was in terms of legal provision was part of record except a copy of advertisement, which has ambiguous contents that even details of post was not specifically mentioned nor any document of selection committee was placed on record. “7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 13 & 14 of the writ petition, it is stated here that since the college authorities have illegally appointed the petitioner on the post of clerk by adopting illegal means as there is no vacancy occurred in college for the post of clerk and as such there is no justification to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. It is further stated here that since Ram Swaroop retired from service on 31.08.2000 ans as such there is no vacancy occurred in the month of Feb. 2000. It is also pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of salary bill for the month of March 2000, it is established that Ram Swaroop is receiving salary from the month of Feb. 2000. it is further stated here that “ By perusal of Annexure -6 of the writ petition it is clear that the Principal of college has sent a report/comment to Deputy Director of Education 2nd Region Agra on 01.09.2000 in which he has mentioned that Ram Swaroop seriously fallen ill and as such he was granted medical leave from the month of Feb. 2000 to Aug. 2000” thus it is clear that from the month of Feb. 2000 Ram Swaroop receive the salary. It can’t to say that the vacancy fallen vacant in the month of Feb. 2000 is totally incorrect and against the Regulation 101 of Chapter-II of the Regulation framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In view of Regulation 101 without taking any permission from the then District Inspector of Schools Hathras have illegally appointed the petitioner by showing that the post of Clerk is lying vacant in the institution substantively. No information was given regarding alleged vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools Hathras nor any permission sought by the college authority before making any appointment. In view of aforesaid facts the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit as his appointment is illegal, without following the procedure of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.” 11. The ambiguous details of advertisement as annexed in Writ Petition is reproduced hereinafter: “ आवशयकतत हह सतमनन (हतथरस) कनयत इणटर कतललज, मम पधतन ललपपक कक अवकतश ररपक कक कतरण खतलन हह जज पनततनत असथतयन हह। अभयथर कक आयय एवव शहपकक यजगयतत पशकत सवपहतत कक अनयरप हज। सतकततकतर हकतय पदनतनक ०६.०२. २००० कज अपनक सभन ममल पमतण पतत सपहत मधयतनह १ बजक मकरक आवतस पर उपससथत हत। इस समबनध मम कजई मतरर वयय दकय न हजरत। कक पयत मपहलत अभयथर आवकदन न करम। पबनधक कनयत इणटर कतललज सतमनन (हतथरस)” 12. In aforesaid circumstances, when above referred details does not mention about any short-term vacancy, the further procedure on it is void-ab-initio, therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order, however since the petitioner has worked for substantial period therefore, interim order as modified by the Division Bench is made absolute that there shall be no recovery." 4. Having examined the facts of the case, we find the conclusion of learned Single Judge to be clearly justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The manipulated appointment obtained by the appellant on class III post therefore does not require any protection. We are in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 5. In such view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed. 6. However, we may observe that since the appointment of appellant on class IV post is not questioned, if there exists any vacancy available in the institution of class IV post the authorities shall be at liberty to consider the appellant's claim against such vacancy, if it is otherwise permissible in accordance with law. Such consideration shall be made within a period of three months. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 K.K. Maurya Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad