Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 contemplates 'prior approval', He submits that word 'approval' as used in Regulation 101 is not akin to prior approval as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submits that prior approval has to be accorded by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of entire process of selection of an employee whose process started with giving up intimation of vacancy as contemplated in Regulation 104 of Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Sri Ran Vijay Singh contended that unless the District Inspector of Schools is aware of the entire procedure of the selection, qualification of the candidates, their respective age and other detail facts, no effective power to approve can be exercised hence the approval has to be of the entire process of selection which is to be given immediately prior to appointing a candidate. He submits word "fill up" as used in Regulation 101 covers entire process beginning from intimation of vacancy culminating into submission of the proceeding to the District Inspector of Schools for consideration and approval and it is at that stage the Inspector is in a better position to check entire process and effectively exercise the duty entrusted on the Inspector. He submits that in aided recognized institutions entire salary is paid by the State and thus it is the obligation of the District Inspector of Schools also to look into all aspects of the matter before permitting to fill up the vacancy. Learned Counsel for both the parties have relied upon various judgments of this Court which shall be referred to while considering the submissions.

21. The observation "of the learned single Judge in Ram Dhani's case (supra) that previous approval under Regulation 101 is required to be taken before issuing advertisement for filling up vacancy does not lay down correct law. We, however, make it clear that although prior approval is required from the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection but there is no prohibition in the Principal/Management to seek permission of the District Inspector of Schools for filling up vacancy by direct recruitment. The permission may or may not be granted by the District Inspector of Schools but even if such permission to start the selection process or to issue advertisement is granted that is not akin to prior approval as contemplated under Regulation 101.

22. 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.

23. The second submission, with regard to the applicability of The Group 'D' Employees (U.P.) Service Rules, 1985 to selection of Class IV posts in a recognized aided institution, Sri Ojha contended that the said Rules are not applicable. Further Sri Ojha contended that for the first time the said Rules were made applicable to the selection of Class IV posts vide letter dated 1st June, 2001 of the Director of Education issued in pursuance of some letter written by the State Government dated 11th May, 2001 and the selection of the appellant being earlier in point of time, the said Rules were not applicable in the present case. Sri Ojha has further submitted that it is not necessary to decide the issue regarding the applicability of 1985 Rules to the selection of the Class III and Class IV employees. Sri Ran Vijay Singh submits that since, according to the petitioner's case, the said 1985 Rules have been made applicable by the letter of the Director of Education dated 1st June, 2001 and the appellant's selection being of the year 1998, thus 1985 Rules cannot be applied to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, we have not examined the submissions regarding the applicability of 1985 Rules with regard to selection on Class III and Class IV posts in a recognized aided institution and the said question is left open.

25. Coming to the appeal of Sanjay Kumar, it is not the case of the appellant that any approval has been granted to the selection of the appellant after completion of selection process. Learned Counsel for Sanjay Kumar, appellant, has placed reliance only on permission dated 5th March, 2001 of the District Inspector of Schools for publishing advertisement. We have already held that the permission to publish the advertisement is not same thing as prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools as contemplated under Regulation 101. Moreover, after first advertisement dated 8th March, 2001, the Principal again issued advertisement on 28th April, 2002 on the basis of which selection has already been made and a person has already been appointed who has been represented before us by Sri R. S. Misra, Advocate. Sri R. S. Misra, Advocate has rightly pointed out that the appellant is not entitled for any relief since he has not even challenged the selection of the selected candidate on the basis of the advertisement dated 28th April, 2002. There being no approval to the selection of the appellant, Sanjay Kumar, no error has been committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar.