Sureshanand Pandey vs The Committee Of Management Swami Karpatriji Inter

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2- District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh, to accord financial approval for appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17.01.2000 and to release his salary and arrears of salary with effect from the aforesaid date.

3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that a post of Class IV employee got vacant in Swami Karpatriji Inter College, Raniganj, Pratapgarh upon retirement of a Class-IV employee Shri Ramraj on 31.12.1999. Prior to that on

18.10.1999, the Principal of the College had written a letter to the District Inspector of Schools informing that the aforesaid vacancy will accrue on

31.12.1999 and requesting that if any candidate is available under Dying in Harness Rules, he should be sent for the post.

4. On 23.11.1999, the Principal of the College sent another letter to the District Inspector of Schools stating that in case no candidate is available under the Dying in Harness Rules, the Principal should be granted permission to make appointment to the vacant post. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued for making selection to the post of Class-IV employee by affixing it on the notice board of the College on 01.01.2000.

5. The petitioner and an another person Shri Ram Putra applied in furtherance 2 WRIA No. 5150 of 2003 of the advertisement and the petitioner was selected on 15.01.2000 and he was issued an appointment letter on the same date. The petitioner claims to have joined the service on 17.01.2000.

6. On 18.03.2000, the Principal of the College forwarded the requisite papers regarding appointment of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh.

7. When no approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

8. Initially, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on

23.08.2003 and the petitioner continued to work in furtherance of the impugned order and was paid salary till the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.05.2023.

9. The writ petition was restored by means of an order dated 01.04.2024 but the interim order has not been restored.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Principal of the College had sought permission for making appointment on the post in question from the District Inspector of Schools through his letter dated

22.11.1999 but he admitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the permission was ever granted by the District Inspector of Schools.

11. The State has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the Principal of the College had not sent intimation of the vacancy in terms of the Regulation 102 of the Chapter III of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. Information regarding appointment of the petitioner was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 03.02.2000 and on 21.03.2000, the District Inspector of Schools refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as the same had been made without seeking his permission. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2000 has been annexed with the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, as amended by the notification dated 02.02.1995, clearly provide that the Appointing Authority shall not fill any vacancy occurring on non-teaching post, without prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. 3 WRIA No. 5150 of 2003

12. On 18.03.2002, the Principal of the College sent another letter seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools again wrote a reply dated 09.04.2000 refusing to grant approval for appointment of the petitioner on the ground that prior permission as envisaged under 101 of the Regulations had not been obtained. In para-10 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that letter dated 22.11.1999 was never received in the Officer of the District Inspector of schools and its receipt is forged.

13. From the aforesaid material available on record as well as from a perusal of the aforesaid Regulations, it appears that although the principal is the Appointing Authority in respect of Class-IV post in a College, as per the Regulation 101 and 102 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, it is obligatory for an aided College to first intimate the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools three months prior to its occurrence and to seek prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools and no appointment on a Class-IV post can be made without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools.

14. From the material it appears that the Principal has made appointment of the petitioner without seeking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools and the appointment of the petitioner is illegal for this reason.

15. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools had denied to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment by its letter dated 21.03.2000, which decision was reiterated by the subsequent letter dated 09.04.2000.

16. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to grant approval to his appointment.

17. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to seek writ of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval to his appointment with effect from 17.01.2000.

18. The writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. October 8, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2- District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh, to accord financial approval for appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17.01.2000 and to release his salary and arrears of salary with effect from the aforesaid date.

3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that a post of Class IV employee got vacant in Swami Karpatriji Inter College, Raniganj, Pratapgarh upon retirement of a Class-IV employee Shri Ramraj on 31.12.1999. Prior to that on

18.10.1999, the Principal of the College had written a letter to the District Inspector of Schools informing that the aforesaid vacancy will accrue on

31.12.1999 and requesting that if any candidate is available under Dying in Harness Rules, he should be sent for the post.

4. On 23.11.1999, the Principal of the College sent another letter to the District Inspector of Schools stating that in case no candidate is available under the Dying in Harness Rules, the Principal should be granted permission to make appointment to the vacant post. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued for making selection to the post of Class-IV employee by affixing it on the notice board of the College on 01.01.2000.

5. The petitioner and an another person Shri Ram Putra applied in furtherance 2 WRIA No. 5150 of 2003 of the advertisement and the petitioner was selected on 15.01.2000 and he was issued an appointment letter on the same date. The petitioner claims to have joined the service on 17.01.2000.

6. On 18.03.2000, the Principal of the College forwarded the requisite papers regarding appointment of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh.

7. When no approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

8. Initially, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on

23.08.2003 and the petitioner continued to work in furtherance of the impugned order and was paid salary till the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.05.2023.

9. The writ petition was restored by means of an order dated 01.04.2024 but the interim order has not been restored.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Principal of the College had sought permission for making appointment on the post in question from the District Inspector of Schools through his letter dated

22.11.1999 but he admitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the permission was ever granted by the District Inspector of Schools.

11. The State has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the Principal of the College had not sent intimation of the vacancy in terms of the Regulation 102 of the Chapter III of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. Information regarding appointment of the petitioner was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 03.02.2000 and on 21.03.2000, the District Inspector of Schools refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as the same had been made without seeking his permission. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2000 has been annexed with the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, as amended by the notification dated 02.02.1995, clearly provide that the Appointing Authority shall not fill any vacancy occurring on non-teaching post, without prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. 3 WRIA No. 5150 of 2003

12. On 18.03.2002, the Principal of the College sent another letter seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools again wrote a reply dated 09.04.2000 refusing to grant approval for appointment of the petitioner on the ground that prior permission as envisaged under 101 of the Regulations had not been obtained. In para-10 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that letter dated 22.11.1999 was never received in the Officer of the District Inspector of schools and its receipt is forged.

13. From the aforesaid material available on record as well as from a perusal of the aforesaid Regulations, it appears that although the principal is the Appointing Authority in respect of Class-IV post in a College, as per the Regulation 101 and 102 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, it is obligatory for an aided College to first intimate the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools three months prior to its occurrence and to seek prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools and no appointment on a Class-IV post can be made without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools.

14. From the material it appears that the Principal has made appointment of the petitioner without seeking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools and the appointment of the petitioner is illegal for this reason.

15. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools had denied to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment by its letter dated 21.03.2000, which decision was reiterated by the subsequent letter dated 09.04.2000.

16. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to grant approval to his appointment.

17. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to seek writ of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval to his appointment with effect from 17.01.2000.

18. The writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. October 8, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench