Dileep Kumar Panday And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Edu. Lucknow And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by respondent no. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich denying the payment of salary to the petitioners by rejecting the representation dated 09.03.2019. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that while passing the impugned order on representation of the petitioners, three main grounds were taken. The reasons shown in the order impugned extracted as under:- "1. िरट यािचका म(cid:517) लगाये गये संल(cid:264)नक(cid:523) के अनुसार िव(cid:88)ापन जनमोचा(cid:259) एवं लोकल रीित समाचार-प(cid:347) म(cid:517) (cid:352)कािशत कराया गया है, लोकल रीित समाचार प(cid:347) की यािचकाकता(cid:259) (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत की गयी (cid:352)ित का मु(cid:349)ण सामा(cid:281)यतः (cid:352)चिलत समाचार प(cid:347)(cid:523) के (cid:293)तर का नह(cid:514) है। मु(cid:349)ण के बेतरतीब होने से. यह (cid:293)प(cid:504) होता है िक यह अखबार लोकल रीित िनयिमत. मुि(cid:349)त नह(cid:514) होता है। अतः िव(cid:88)ापन (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या का (cid:622)िषत होना (cid:293)प(cid:504) है।

2. िव(cid:495)ालय (cid:497)ारा चतुथ(cid:259) (cid:361)ेणी कम(cid:259)चािरय(cid:523) के िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) का िव(cid:88)ापन कराया गया था। 02 िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) िव(cid:495)ालय म(cid:517) वकु ल मा(cid:347) 15 आवेदन प(cid:347)(cid:523) का (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त होनः दशा(cid:259)या गया है। इ(cid:281)ह(cid:514) दो पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) मा(cid:347) 15 आवेदन-प(cid:347)(cid:523) का (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त होना (cid:293)प(cid:504) करता है िक िनयुि(cid:472) (cid:352)िकया म(cid:517) पारदिशता नह(cid:514) अपनायी गयी है।

3. कु ल (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त 15 आवेदन-प(cid:347)(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) मा(cid:347) 11 अ(cid:285)यथ(cid:515) सा(cid:87)ा(cid:277)कार म(cid:517) उपि(cid:293)थत होने के सापे(cid:87) 04 अ(cid:285)यिथय(cid:523) का सा(cid:87)ा(cid:277)कार म(cid:517) अनुपि(cid:293)थत होना भी िनयुि(cid:472) (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या की पारदिशता को दोषयु(cid:472) बनाता है।" 2 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 Perusal of the reasons is apparent that only 15 applications were submitted in-pursuant to the advertisement made for appointment of two vacancies on Class-IVth post, whereas, the another reason is that the advertisement is from the two newspaper, one is Jan Morcha and the second one is Local Riti. It is said that so far as the newspaper, Local Riti is concerned, that seems to be not published regularly, as it's typing is in haphazard manner. He has also drawn attention towards the reasons assigned for rejection in para 4 of the counter affidavit, that since vide Government Order dated

04.09.2013, the arrangements were made for the appointment of class IVth in intermediate colleges, the only method available was through outsourcing. He added that ground/reasons which has been shown for rejection of the claim of the petitioners is otherwise than mentioned in the counter affidavit. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi – (1978) 1 SCC 405 and has referred paragraph 8 of the abovesaid judgment:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been a settled proposition of law that every order has to stand on its own legs and 3 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 since the reasons which are assigned for rejection are nonest as the same has been rejected on otherwise considerations, which is mentioned in the counter affidavit, therefore, submission is that the order dated 29.06.2019, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has drawn attention towards paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the appointment was to be done against the substantive vacancies and since the Government Order had come into effect, since 04.09.2013, therefore, the vacancies could not have been filled up through regular recruitment, but that should have be done through outsourcing mode, therefore, submission is that the appointment itself is ab initio void and unlawful and therefore, the District Inspector of Schools has rightly passed the order, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary to the petitioners. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the controversy is apparent that the claim of the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools was for payment of salary as they were appointed in-pursuant to the advertisement published for the class IVth post and whereby, they had been appointed. The District Inspector of Schools took the ground that, since there were only 15 applications were submitted against two vacancies of class IVth post, which were insufficient and secondly, the newspaper local riti, does not seem to be regular as is evident from its typing. This Court has noticed that the method to consider that the newspaper 'local 'riti' is not a regular only by going through the typing of this paper is unreasoned. Apart from this the paragarph 4 of the counter-affidavit mentioned and taken by the District Inspector of Schools while passing the rejection order as in paragraph 4, is apparent that the is otherwise the reason is evident reason for not giving the payment and granting approval on such appointment is that the Government Order dated 4/9/2013 had come into force, which itself goes against the reason assigned in the rejection order. The cousnel for the petitioners has rightly placed the settled 4 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 proposition of law, in Mohinder Singh Gill(Supra), as the grounds taken are different than mentioned in the counter affidavit, therefore, thus, the impugned order does not stand on its own legs. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to take fresh decision regarding the payment of salary to the petitioners and the concurrence if any, thereof, within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 25, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by respondent no. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich denying the payment of salary to the petitioners by rejecting the representation dated 09.03.2019. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that while passing the impugned order on representation of the petitioners, three main grounds were taken. The reasons shown in the order impugned extracted as under:- "1. िरट यािचका म(cid:517) लगाये गये संल(cid:264)नक(cid:523) के अनुसार िव(cid:88)ापन जनमोचा(cid:259) एवं लोकल रीित समाचार-प(cid:347) म(cid:517) (cid:352)कािशत कराया गया है, लोकल रीित समाचार प(cid:347) की यािचकाकता(cid:259) (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत की गयी (cid:352)ित का मु(cid:349)ण सामा(cid:281)यतः (cid:352)चिलत समाचार प(cid:347)(cid:523) के (cid:293)तर का नह(cid:514) है। मु(cid:349)ण के बेतरतीब होने से. यह (cid:293)प(cid:504) होता है िक यह अखबार लोकल रीित िनयिमत. मुि(cid:349)त नह(cid:514) होता है। अतः िव(cid:88)ापन (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या का (cid:622)िषत होना (cid:293)प(cid:504) है।

2. िव(cid:495)ालय (cid:497)ारा चतुथ(cid:259) (cid:361)ेणी कम(cid:259)चािरय(cid:523) के िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) का िव(cid:88)ापन कराया गया था। 02 िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) िव(cid:495)ालय म(cid:517) वकु ल मा(cid:347) 15 आवेदन प(cid:347)(cid:523) का (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त होनः दशा(cid:259)या गया है। इ(cid:281)ह(cid:514) दो पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) मा(cid:347) 15 आवेदन-प(cid:347)(cid:523) का (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त होना (cid:293)प(cid:504) करता है िक िनयुि(cid:472) (cid:352)िकया म(cid:517) पारदिशता नह(cid:514) अपनायी गयी है।

3. कु ल (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त 15 आवेदन-प(cid:347)(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) मा(cid:347) 11 अ(cid:285)यथ(cid:515) सा(cid:87)ा(cid:277)कार म(cid:517) उपि(cid:293)थत होने के सापे(cid:87) 04 अ(cid:285)यिथय(cid:523) का सा(cid:87)ा(cid:277)कार म(cid:517) अनुपि(cid:293)थत होना भी िनयुि(cid:472) (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या की पारदिशता को दोषयु(cid:472) बनाता है।" 2 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 Perusal of the reasons is apparent that only 15 applications were submitted in-pursuant to the advertisement made for appointment of two vacancies on Class-IVth post, whereas, the another reason is that the advertisement is from the two newspaper, one is Jan Morcha and the second one is Local Riti. It is said that so far as the newspaper, Local Riti is concerned, that seems to be not published regularly, as it's typing is in haphazard manner. He has also drawn attention towards the reasons assigned for rejection in para 4 of the counter affidavit, that since vide Government Order dated

04.09.2013, the arrangements were made for the appointment of class IVth in intermediate colleges, the only method available was through outsourcing. He added that ground/reasons which has been shown for rejection of the claim of the petitioners is otherwise than mentioned in the counter affidavit. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi – (1978) 1 SCC 405 and has referred paragraph 8 of the abovesaid judgment:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been a settled proposition of law that every order has to stand on its own legs and 3 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 since the reasons which are assigned for rejection are nonest as the same has been rejected on otherwise considerations, which is mentioned in the counter affidavit, therefore, submission is that the order dated 29.06.2019, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has drawn attention towards paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the appointment was to be done against the substantive vacancies and since the Government Order had come into effect, since 04.09.2013, therefore, the vacancies could not have been filled up through regular recruitment, but that should have be done through outsourcing mode, therefore, submission is that the appointment itself is ab initio void and unlawful and therefore, the District Inspector of Schools has rightly passed the order, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary to the petitioners. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the controversy is apparent that the claim of the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools was for payment of salary as they were appointed in-pursuant to the advertisement published for the class IVth post and whereby, they had been appointed. The District Inspector of Schools took the ground that, since there were only 15 applications were submitted against two vacancies of class IVth post, which were insufficient and secondly, the newspaper local riti, does not seem to be regular as is evident from its typing. This Court has noticed that the method to consider that the newspaper 'local 'riti' is not a regular only by going through the typing of this paper is unreasoned. Apart from this the paragarph 4 of the counter-affidavit mentioned and taken by the District Inspector of Schools while passing the rejection order as in paragraph 4, is apparent that the is otherwise the reason is evident reason for not giving the payment and granting approval on such appointment is that the Government Order dated 4/9/2013 had come into force, which itself goes against the reason assigned in the rejection order. The cousnel for the petitioners has rightly placed the settled 4 WRIA No. 19586 of 2019 proposition of law, in Mohinder Singh Gill(Supra), as the grounds taken are different than mentioned in the counter affidavit, therefore, thus, the impugned order does not stand on its own legs. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to take fresh decision regarding the payment of salary to the petitioners and the concurrence if any, thereof, within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 25, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench