Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi 748 (S/S)2005 vs State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Secondary ... on 13 September, 2019
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 516 of 2014 Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi 748 (S/S)2005 Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Secondary Edu.Govt.Of U.P.Lko.& Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kalra,Shyam Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.)
1. This Special Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 11th of August, 2014 passed in writ petition No. 748(S/S) of 2005 whereby the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for payment of salary on the post of Peon from the State Exchequer has been rejected.
2. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Jagdish Dildar Singh versus State of U.P. and others reported in (2006) 5 ALJ 151 has recorded a finding of fact that there was no compliance of Regulation 101 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1921') with regard to the petitioner since no prior approval was sought or obtained before issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner after his selection for the post of Peon.
3. Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Dildar Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools is required to be taken under Regulation 101 before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate. The relevant paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered in Jagdish Dildar Singh's case (supra) is as follows:-
"In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner does not dispute the fact that no prior approval was obtained by the Committee of Management after selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the appellant/writ petitioner.
5. In view of the law laid down in the case of Jagdish Dildar Singh (supra) which is clearly applicable in the present case, the judgment and order under challenge does not require any interference in appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the Special Appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2019 prabhat