High Court · 2025

of Peon fell vacant due to retirement of Sri Ram Roop on

31.08.1998 and Sri Ram Dular on 31.07.1992. Since there was no any other claimant to fill the aforesaid posts and in order to cope with the day-to-day work, the committee of management decided to fill up the aforesaid two posts; one from the general category and the other from the reserved category and accordingly initiated the selection process for appointment of Peons. In pursuance thereof, petitioner no.1 being general category candidate and petitioner no.2 being reserved category candidate applied and after following the due procedure of selection, they were appointed on the post of Peon on

07.07.1999 and joined on their respective posts on 08.07.1999. Thereafter, requisite papers along with relevant documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar by the committee of management for approval and payment of salary on 08.07.1998, pursuant to which, the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar accorded approval of appointments and also ordered for payment of salary. Since then the petitioners were working efficiently and satisfactorily and they were being paid salary regularly, but all of sudden, on

21.08.2002, opposite party no.6 i.e. Principal of the College dismissed the petitioners from service on the directions dated

06.07.2002 and 16.08.2002 issued by opposite parties no.2 and 4 without any rhyme or reason.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that so far the first ground for cancellation of appointments as mentioned in the impugned order regarding notification of Code of Conduct for General Elections is concerned, it is to be seen that petitioners were issued appointment letters on 07.07.1999 and they also joined the services on 08.07.1999 i.e. prior to imposition of the Code of Conduct, which was in between

11.07.1999 till 03.10.1999, so the first ground which is mentioned in the impugned order for termination of services of the petitioners, is not sustainable. The second ground that petitioners are related to the Principal, who is the appointing authority, is also not sustainable for the reason that petitioner no.2 belongs to Other Backward Caste category and petitioner no.1 is not relative of the Principal of the College. He has further submitted that the impugned order does not indicate as to how petitioner no.1 is the relative of Principal (opposite party No.6). It is also submitted that prior to passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. The selection procedure was duly followed and thereafter appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on the post of Peon, which is a Class-IV post, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure as adopted by the Principal of the College.

4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has taken a ground that an enquiry was conducted, in which it was found that appointment letters were issued during the imposition of Code of Conduct of General Elections, therefore, the impugned order is sustainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Since the appointment letters were issued during the imposition of Code of Conduct for General Elections, the petitioners could not have been appointed.

5. Heard Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

6. After going through the record, the two grounds mentioned in the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; firstly that the answering opposite parties are unable to point out as to how the petitioners are relatives of the Principal of the College and secondly; it is also relevant to mention here that the Code of Conduct for General Elections was imposed between

11.09.1999 to 03.10.1999, whereas the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 07.07.1999. Apart from it, one important factor is to be noted here that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also to be noted that this Court passed a detailed interim order on

09.05.2008 and the petitioners have been allowed to work and they are being paid salary since then. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated

06.07.2002, 16.08.2002 and 21.08.2002 passed by opposite parties no.2, 4 and 6, contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Consequences will follow. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

of Peon fell vacant due to retirement of Sri Ram Roop on

31.08.1998 and Sri Ram Dular on 31.07.1992. Since there was no any other claimant to fill the aforesaid posts and in order to cope with the day-to-day work, the committee of management decided to fill up the aforesaid two posts; one from the general category and the other from the reserved category and accordingly initiated the selection process for appointment of Peons. In pursuance thereof, petitioner no.1 being general category candidate and petitioner no.2 being reserved category candidate applied and after following the due procedure of selection, they were appointed on the post of Peon on

07.07.1999 and joined on their respective posts on 08.07.1999. Thereafter, requisite papers along with relevant documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar by the committee of management for approval and payment of salary on 08.07.1998, pursuant to which, the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar accorded approval of appointments and also ordered for payment of salary. Since then the petitioners were working efficiently and satisfactorily and they were being paid salary regularly, but all of sudden, on

21.08.2002, opposite party no.6 i.e. Principal of the College dismissed the petitioners from service on the directions dated

06.07.2002 and 16.08.2002 issued by opposite parties no.2 and 4 without any rhyme or reason.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that so far the first ground for cancellation of appointments as mentioned in the impugned order regarding notification of Code of Conduct for General Elections is concerned, it is to be seen that petitioners were issued appointment letters on 07.07.1999 and they also joined the services on 08.07.1999 i.e. prior to imposition of the Code of Conduct, which was in between

11.07.1999 till 03.10.1999, so the first ground which is mentioned in the impugned order for termination of services of the petitioners, is not sustainable. The second ground that petitioners are related to the Principal, who is the appointing authority, is also not sustainable for the reason that petitioner no.2 belongs to Other Backward Caste category and petitioner no.1 is not relative of the Principal of the College. He has further submitted that the impugned order does not indicate as to how petitioner no.1 is the relative of Principal (opposite party No.6). It is also submitted that prior to passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. The selection procedure was duly followed and thereafter appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on the post of Peon, which is a Class-IV post, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure as adopted by the Principal of the College.

4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has taken a ground that an enquiry was conducted, in which it was found that appointment letters were issued during the imposition of Code of Conduct of General Elections, therefore, the impugned order is sustainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Since the appointment letters were issued during the imposition of Code of Conduct for General Elections, the petitioners could not have been appointed.

5. Heard Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

6. After going through the record, the two grounds mentioned in the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; firstly that the answering opposite parties are unable to point out as to how the petitioners are relatives of the Principal of the College and secondly; it is also relevant to mention here that the Code of Conduct for General Elections was imposed between

11.09.1999 to 03.10.1999, whereas the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 07.07.1999. Apart from it, one important factor is to be noted here that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also to be noted that this Court passed a detailed interim order on

09.05.2008 and the petitioners have been allowed to work and they are being paid salary since then. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated

06.07.2002, 16.08.2002 and 21.08.2002 passed by opposite parties no.2, 4 and 6, contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Consequences will follow. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench