Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89556 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17512 of 2001 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Singh Respondent :- Joint Director Of Education Basti Region Basti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.K.Tiwari,Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 24.04.2001 with consequential direction to respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner regularly. 3. After subjecting to the selection process, the petitioner was appointed in fourth respondent's institution in the year 1997 and the said select list was sent to second respondent for approval. Vide order dated 20.08.1998, second respondent has approved his appointment. From the said selection, the petitioner was appointed and continued to work as Class-IV employee in the said institution. 4. One of the members of the committee of management has raised certain objections with regard to selections. After due inquiry, the said complaint has been closed. After lapse of sometime, again the very same person has made one more complaint behind the back of the petitioner, inquiry has been conducted and based on the report as directed by the first respondent, the second respondent has passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment made in favour of the petitioner. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Despite providing of opportunity, respondents have not filed the counter affidavit. This Court has considered the entire issue and passed the following orders on 29.04.2002: "On 13.3.2002 one month and no more was allowed to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post was made after due sanction having been given by the District Inspector of Schools on the letter having been written by the principal. The appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Pursuant to it petitioner started receiving his salary. It is submitted that one member of the committee has made a complaint about irregularities in appointment of the petitioner which was duly inquired and report came in favour of petitioner and thus the matter ended. After about one and half year against same member of the Committee, made second complaint against the petitioner upon which the Joint Director of Education, who has nothing to do with the matter, directed for passing of the impugned order for non payment of the salary to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that it is District Inspector of Schools who is competent authority in the matter and, therefore, passing of the impugned order against the petitioner's interest, on the facts of the present case is not at all justified. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby directed that until further order of this Court the respondents will ensure payment of current salary to the petitioner month by month as and when falls due and to that extent the order as challenged before this Court, adverse to the petitioner's interest, shall be kept in abeyance." 6. Based on the abovesaid orders, services of the petitioner have been continued and salaries were also paid regularly. After attaining the age of superannuation in August, 2024, the petitioner was also retired from services. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the respondents have conducted inquiry behind back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity and by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, he has continued and completed his tenure and also retired from services. Therefore, requested to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 8. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the committee of management has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules. The Rules provides wide publication before making any selection. In the instant case, the management has made advertisement only in a newspaper, which is having marginal circulation. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner is irregular and accordingly, the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the interim order, as the petitioner has continued and his salaries have also been released, in such circumstances, instead of going into the merits of the case with regard to irregularity committed by the management, the impugned order dated 24.04.2001 is set aside directing the respondents to calculate all retiremental benefits and other dues for which the petitioner is entitled within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad