High Court · 2025

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee on the ground that the said orders are contrary to the observations made by this Court in previous litigation. Initially, when the approval was rejected by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 20.11.2006, the petitioner- Institution has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.10510 of 2007. The said writ petition was considered and passed the following order:- "Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. There is a dispute regarding name recommended by the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur to absorb two Assistant Clerks in the institution but there is a specific averment on behalf of the petitioner, committee of management that no Assistant Clerk came in the institution to join as Assistant Clerk on direction and order of D.I.O.S. Since there was no claim by any person to join as Clerk in the institution hence there was no option but to advertise the post for selection of Assistant Clerk, which remain vacant for a long period. In view of the fact there is no dispute that there were four sanction post of Assistant Clerk including Head Clerk and out of that the post was advertised for selection of three Assistant Clerk as no class IV employee was available for promotion to the post of Assistant Clerk. If no Assistant Clerks were working, whether any Assistant Clerk on direction and order of D.I.O.S. went to join in the institution or not and whether the management did not permit to join them, these aspects has to be considered and if the management refused what action has been taken by the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur to ensure joining of those Assistant Clerks in the institution of the petitioner. Hence respondent no.2, Regional Committee, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur is required to consider the matter afresh. Since the matter is of the year 2007 hence the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, preferably, within two months, after furnishing certified copy of this order, for approval of three Assistant Clerks appointed by the petitioner, Committee of Management. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost."

3. Consequent to the disposal of the said order the respondents have passed order once again rejecting the case of the appointment made by the petitioner- Institution vide order dated 14.05.2013.

4. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.35909 of 2013, wherein the respondents have taken four objections, while passing the impugned order. Initially, when the advertisement published in the newspapers there was no mention of type of selections and the selection committee was constituted contrary to the rules and non-mentioning of education qualifications and finally, non-availability of the vacancy.

5. While considering all the objections this Court has passed the following order on 20.05.2016 :- "12. In response to the said objection, Shri H.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the averments contained in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein it has been categorically averred that all the aforesaid persons did not appear before the College authorities to join. Shri Markandey Prasad Pathak has already been absorbed and is currently working in Ganga Prasad Smarak Inter College, Gorakhpur and his pay bill and bank statement have been appended as Annexure RA-2. Similarly, Shri Jyoti Prakash has already been absorbed and is currently working in Bapu Inter College, Peppeganj, Gorakhpur and his salary bill and bank statement have been annexed as Annexure RA-3. Shri Satendra Prasad Chand has already been absorbed and is currently working in Intermediate College, Bhatauli Bazar Unwal, Gorakhpur and his salary bill and bank statement have been annexed as Annexure RA-4. Shri Krishna Mohan Shahi has already been absorbed and is currently working in Shashtri Higher Secondary School, Gorakhpur and his bank statement has been annexed as Annexure RA-5. He further submits that the impugned order cannot be substantiated by means of counter affidavit as per law laid down by Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors AIR 1978 SC 851 and as such, the impugned order cannot be substantiated by means of counter affidavit.

13. For the purpose of making selection/recruitment of Class-III & Class-IV employees, no prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools is required and such requirement is only before making appointment, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Singh vs. State of UP and others 2006 (3) ESC 2055 while interpreting Regulation 101, Chapter III of the Regulations framed by the 1921 Act. While deciding the Principal, Intermediate College Jaura Bazar, District Kushinagar' case (supra) the Court has observed that since for recruitment and selection process for Class IV employees, no prior permission is needed as held by this Court in Jagdish Singh (supra), and the management of the institution would have liberty to proceed with the recruitment process and as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the objections raised by the respondents cannot sustain under the present facts and circumstances of the case.

14. In view of above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Regional Committee to pass an appropriate order in the matter as per observations made hereinabove within a period of three weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

6. Consequent upon the above said order, surprisingly the respondents once again rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 16.11.2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that the present impugned order is passed on the very same grounds which were set aside by this Court in the earlier litigation, again and again, the respondents are rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the very same grounds which are not permitted to pass such orders. To support his contention learned counsel has relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Commissioner Karnataka Housing vs C. Muddaiah reported in 2007 (7) SCC 689, the Apex Court came down heavily and held that such the direction are issued by the competent court it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservations, and if the order passed by this Court of law is not complied or is ignored there will be end of law. Further clarified that the parties having any grievance, they are at liberty to assail before the competent court. As in the instant case earlier two occasions the rejection order were interdicted by this Court in two different writ petitions and in fact in Writ Petition No.35909 of 2013, this Court has considered all the objections raised and surprisingly again in the instant case, the learned Standing Counsel based on the counter affidavit has taken an issue which was answered by this Court on earlier occasions.

8. In the said circumstances, this court has no hesitation to say that the impugned orders are contrary to the order passed by this Court in Writ- A No.35909 of 2016. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 is set aside and respondents are directed to issue fresh orders approving the appointment within a period of two months.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee on the ground that the said orders are contrary to the observations made by this Court in previous litigation. Initially, when the approval was rejected by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 20.11.2006, the petitioner- Institution has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.10510 of 2007. The said writ petition was considered and passed the following order:- "Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. There is a dispute regarding name recommended by the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur to absorb two Assistant Clerks in the institution but there is a specific averment on behalf of the petitioner, committee of management that no Assistant Clerk came in the institution to join as Assistant Clerk on direction and order of D.I.O.S. Since there was no claim by any person to join as Clerk in the institution hence there was no option but to advertise the post for selection of Assistant Clerk, which remain vacant for a long period. In view of the fact there is no dispute that there were four sanction post of Assistant Clerk including Head Clerk and out of that the post was advertised for selection of three Assistant Clerk as no class IV employee was available for promotion to the post of Assistant Clerk. If no Assistant Clerks were working, whether any Assistant Clerk on direction and order of D.I.O.S. went to join in the institution or not and whether the management did not permit to join them, these aspects has to be considered and if the management refused what action has been taken by the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur to ensure joining of those Assistant Clerks in the institution of the petitioner. Hence respondent no.2, Regional Committee, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur is required to consider the matter afresh. Since the matter is of the year 2007 hence the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, preferably, within two months, after furnishing certified copy of this order, for approval of three Assistant Clerks appointed by the petitioner, Committee of Management. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost."

3. Consequent to the disposal of the said order the respondents have passed order once again rejecting the case of the appointment made by the petitioner- Institution vide order dated 14.05.2013.

4. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.35909 of 2013, wherein the respondents have taken four objections, while passing the impugned order. Initially, when the advertisement published in the newspapers there was no mention of type of selections and the selection committee was constituted contrary to the rules and non-mentioning of education qualifications and finally, non-availability of the vacancy.

5. While considering all the objections this Court has passed the following order on 20.05.2016 :- "12. In response to the said objection, Shri H.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the averments contained in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein it has been categorically averred that all the aforesaid persons did not appear before the College authorities to join. Shri Markandey Prasad Pathak has already been absorbed and is currently working in Ganga Prasad Smarak Inter College, Gorakhpur and his pay bill and bank statement have been appended as Annexure RA-2. Similarly, Shri Jyoti Prakash has already been absorbed and is currently working in Bapu Inter College, Peppeganj, Gorakhpur and his salary bill and bank statement have been annexed as Annexure RA-3. Shri Satendra Prasad Chand has already been absorbed and is currently working in Intermediate College, Bhatauli Bazar Unwal, Gorakhpur and his salary bill and bank statement have been annexed as Annexure RA-4. Shri Krishna Mohan Shahi has already been absorbed and is currently working in Shashtri Higher Secondary School, Gorakhpur and his bank statement has been annexed as Annexure RA-5. He further submits that the impugned order cannot be substantiated by means of counter affidavit as per law laid down by Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors AIR 1978 SC 851 and as such, the impugned order cannot be substantiated by means of counter affidavit.

13. For the purpose of making selection/recruitment of Class-III & Class-IV employees, no prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools is required and such requirement is only before making appointment, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Singh vs. State of UP and others 2006 (3) ESC 2055 while interpreting Regulation 101, Chapter III of the Regulations framed by the 1921 Act. While deciding the Principal, Intermediate College Jaura Bazar, District Kushinagar' case (supra) the Court has observed that since for recruitment and selection process for Class IV employees, no prior permission is needed as held by this Court in Jagdish Singh (supra), and the management of the institution would have liberty to proceed with the recruitment process and as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the objections raised by the respondents cannot sustain under the present facts and circumstances of the case.

14. In view of above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Regional Committee to pass an appropriate order in the matter as per observations made hereinabove within a period of three weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

6. Consequent upon the above said order, surprisingly the respondents once again rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 16.11.2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that the present impugned order is passed on the very same grounds which were set aside by this Court in the earlier litigation, again and again, the respondents are rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the very same grounds which are not permitted to pass such orders. To support his contention learned counsel has relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Commissioner Karnataka Housing vs C. Muddaiah reported in 2007 (7) SCC 689, the Apex Court came down heavily and held that such the direction are issued by the competent court it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservations, and if the order passed by this Court of law is not complied or is ignored there will be end of law. Further clarified that the parties having any grievance, they are at liberty to assail before the competent court. As in the instant case earlier two occasions the rejection order were interdicted by this Court in two different writ petitions and in fact in Writ Petition No.35909 of 2013, this Court has considered all the objections raised and surprisingly again in the instant case, the learned Standing Counsel based on the counter affidavit has taken an issue which was answered by this Court on earlier occasions.

8. In the said circumstances, this court has no hesitation to say that the impugned orders are contrary to the order passed by this Court in Writ- A No.35909 of 2016. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 is set aside and respondents are directed to issue fresh orders approving the appointment within a period of two months.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad