High Court · 2025

grounds. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ-A No.63498 of 2009, this Hon'ble Court has considered and allowed the said writ petition with the following directions :- "In support of first ground taken in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which is letter dated 24.7.2006 written by respondent no.6 by which all relevant documents with regard to selection of petitioners were submitted, which were duly received in the office of D.I.O.S. on 29.7.2006. There is also specific averment in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. There is no proper denial supported with any document found in the counter affidavit. With regard to second ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention to the Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which is complete list of candidates applied for the post of Class IV employees and list of 44 candidates having their signatures, who have appeared in the interview, therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. Third ground of impugned order that there is no evidence with regard to the information of the interview to the candidates is concerned, the petitioners have annexed alongwith writ petition the list of candidates and detail of registered post, therefore, it is also not sustainable. So far as last ground is concerned, it is also not getting support from the document annexed alongwith counter affidavit or averment made in the counter affidavit. There is no dispute on the point that there are total 9 sanctioned posts of Class IV employees and one post of Daftari, which was duly sanctioned by Director of Education vide order dated 15.12.1989. Petitioners have made clear averment in the writ petition annexing the chart of persons working on the post of Daftari and Class IV employees and according to that after promotion, one Rama Shankar Pandey is working on the post of Daftari, 7 other persons are working on the post of Class IV employees and two posts are vacant, which is also not disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In fact, it is admitted that the post of Daftari is promotional post and there is no whisper of any dispute with regard to promotion of Rama Shankar Pandey, which clearly shows that two posts were vacant, therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. I have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly contended that in the light of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra), impugned order cannot be improved by filing affidavit and further in the light of judgment of Jagdish Singh son of Dildar Singh (Supra), there is no requirement for taking any permission. This legal position settled by the Court could not be disputed by learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Under such facts and circumstances of the case and judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned orders dated 16.09.2009 and 22.09.2009 are not sustainable and hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in light of observations made by this Court maximum within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed."

3. Finally remanded the matter once again to the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders based on the observations made above.

4. Consequently, respondents have once again rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 25.11.2019 by taking a new ground that the fourth respondent has not followed the roster points while filling up the vacancies.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that it's an admitted fact, out of nine sanctioned posts, already seven Class IV employees were working in the institution. Out of seven, two belongs to Other Backward Caste and two belongs to Scheduled Caste that clearly discloses more than 50% reservation has been applied and while rejecting the case of the petitioners that aspect was not considered by the respondents. Further learned senior Counsel urged that the respondents are not entitled to take different grounds each time. In fact, earlier the rejection was made on three grounds and all the grounds were countered by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 03.07.2019 and in fact remanded the matter to the competent authority is only to pass an approval order as per provisions of the Act but not to reject on some other grounds. In fact, as the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit as well as in the impugned order is based on the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools dated 12.07.2002. The said letter was made available with the respondents as on the date of rejection made in the year 2009 but surprisingly that ground was not taken in the earlier rejection order that itself shows the intention and motive of the respondents for rejection which cannot be permitted by law.

6. Reply to the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State has submitted that in fact as per the letter addressed by the District Magistrate dated 12.07.2002 and also the Director of Secondary Education dated 17.08.2002, all the backlog vacant post of Group A, B, C and D should be filled up. Hence, the appointments of the petitioners by the fourth and fifth respondents is contrary to the orders issued by the District Magistrate as well as the Director Secondary Education, hence the disapproval in accordance with the guidelines.

7. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and also on perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ-A No.63498 of 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of remanding the matter to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the said order but, surprisingly without considering averments, as per the observations made in the said order, the respondents rejected the appointments of the petitioners and once again rejected the same on different grounds. Even as per the averments made in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition, there is no clear denial in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

8. In view of the said circumstances, grounds taken by the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 25.11.2019 is contrary to the record. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of, with the direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders providing the service to the petitioners in Class IV post in accordance with law. This exercise should be completed within a period of two month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Donadi Ramesh,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

grounds. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ-A No.63498 of 2009, this Hon'ble Court has considered and allowed the said writ petition with the following directions :- "In support of first ground taken in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which is letter dated 24.7.2006 written by respondent no.6 by which all relevant documents with regard to selection of petitioners were submitted, which were duly received in the office of D.I.O.S. on 29.7.2006. There is also specific averment in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. There is no proper denial supported with any document found in the counter affidavit. With regard to second ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention to the Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which is complete list of candidates applied for the post of Class IV employees and list of 44 candidates having their signatures, who have appeared in the interview, therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. Third ground of impugned order that there is no evidence with regard to the information of the interview to the candidates is concerned, the petitioners have annexed alongwith writ petition the list of candidates and detail of registered post, therefore, it is also not sustainable. So far as last ground is concerned, it is also not getting support from the document annexed alongwith counter affidavit or averment made in the counter affidavit. There is no dispute on the point that there are total 9 sanctioned posts of Class IV employees and one post of Daftari, which was duly sanctioned by Director of Education vide order dated 15.12.1989. Petitioners have made clear averment in the writ petition annexing the chart of persons working on the post of Daftari and Class IV employees and according to that after promotion, one Rama Shankar Pandey is working on the post of Daftari, 7 other persons are working on the post of Class IV employees and two posts are vacant, which is also not disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In fact, it is admitted that the post of Daftari is promotional post and there is no whisper of any dispute with regard to promotion of Rama Shankar Pandey, which clearly shows that two posts were vacant, therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. I have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly contended that in the light of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra), impugned order cannot be improved by filing affidavit and further in the light of judgment of Jagdish Singh son of Dildar Singh (Supra), there is no requirement for taking any permission. This legal position settled by the Court could not be disputed by learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Under such facts and circumstances of the case and judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned orders dated 16.09.2009 and 22.09.2009 are not sustainable and hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in light of observations made by this Court maximum within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed."

3. Finally remanded the matter once again to the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders based on the observations made above.

4. Consequently, respondents have once again rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 25.11.2019 by taking a new ground that the fourth respondent has not followed the roster points while filling up the vacancies.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that it's an admitted fact, out of nine sanctioned posts, already seven Class IV employees were working in the institution. Out of seven, two belongs to Other Backward Caste and two belongs to Scheduled Caste that clearly discloses more than 50% reservation has been applied and while rejecting the case of the petitioners that aspect was not considered by the respondents. Further learned senior Counsel urged that the respondents are not entitled to take different grounds each time. In fact, earlier the rejection was made on three grounds and all the grounds were countered by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 03.07.2019 and in fact remanded the matter to the competent authority is only to pass an approval order as per provisions of the Act but not to reject on some other grounds. In fact, as the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit as well as in the impugned order is based on the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools dated 12.07.2002. The said letter was made available with the respondents as on the date of rejection made in the year 2009 but surprisingly that ground was not taken in the earlier rejection order that itself shows the intention and motive of the respondents for rejection which cannot be permitted by law.

6. Reply to the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State has submitted that in fact as per the letter addressed by the District Magistrate dated 12.07.2002 and also the Director of Secondary Education dated 17.08.2002, all the backlog vacant post of Group A, B, C and D should be filled up. Hence, the appointments of the petitioners by the fourth and fifth respondents is contrary to the orders issued by the District Magistrate as well as the Director Secondary Education, hence the disapproval in accordance with the guidelines.

7. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and also on perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ-A No.63498 of 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of remanding the matter to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the said order but, surprisingly without considering averments, as per the observations made in the said order, the respondents rejected the appointments of the petitioners and once again rejected the same on different grounds. Even as per the averments made in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition, there is no clear denial in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

8. In view of the said circumstances, grounds taken by the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 25.11.2019 is contrary to the record. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of, with the direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders providing the service to the petitioners in Class IV post in accordance with law. This exercise should be completed within a period of two month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Donadi Ramesh,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad