Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78156 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30572 of 2001 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- D.I.O.S. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra,Arun Kumar Misra,I.P.Srivastava,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The 4th respondent after getting permission from the District Inspector of School, Basti appointed the petitioner as assistant clerk and after subject to selection process the petitioner was appointed on 25.02.1999 and after his appointment he has joined his duties on 01.03.1999. Subsequently, the respondent institution has forwarded the proposals vide letter dated 26.03.1999 to the District Inspector of Schools for cross examinations when the said proposals were rejected by the impugned order dated 09.05.2001 assailing the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Considering the submissions, this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 16.08.2001 has passed the following orders:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel representing respondents no.1 and 2. The respondent no.1 has by the impugned order dated 9.5.2001 refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Clerk in the college on the ground that there is only one sanctioned post of Assistant clerk in that college on which one Sri Rama Kant Upadhyaya was promoted as Assistant Clerk from the post of Daftari and is working and drawing salary on the said post and, as such, there was no vacancy on which the petitioner could be appointed as Assistant clerk. The petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 16.2.1999 sent by the Manager/ Principal to the District Inspector of Schools stating that the Head Clerk of the College had gone on leave due to prolonged illness. Because of this there is one clerk left in the college, because of which the work of the college is suffering. It is submitted that Assistant Clerk Raghuraj Singh was promoted as Head clerk on temporary and adhoc basis. Therefore, short-term vacancy on the post of assistant clerk arose on which the petitioner has been appointed. This aspect has not been considered by the District Inspector of Schools in its proper prospective as it has been stated that the petitioner is the son of the head clerk of the college, who had gone on long leave and on that basis he got his son appointed. The appointment of the son of the head clerk does not necessarily make the illness of the head clerk fake. In any case long leave has been granted to him causing short term vacancy. In the circumstances, the operation of the order dated 9th May 2001 will remain stayed till further orders. The petitioner will be continued in service and will be paid his salary. ". 4. Consequent upon the said orders, the petitioner has continued in the same post but the respondents have not released his salary. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contented that the impugned orders are contrary to the said direction/orders. 6. The first ground for rejection of the approval is that the permission has not been taken before making an appointment is contrary to the record. The said approval proceedings were filed along with the writ petition as Annexure -1. According to the said record the management has obtained permission before making advertisement. The second ground is that no proper procedure was followed before making selection is also contrary to the record as the material filed along with the writ petition shows that on 25.02.1999, the management has followed the procedure contemplated under the rules. Apart from the other allegations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders are passed without following the principles of natural justice. Before passing such orders, the respondents have not issued any notice or called any record either from the petitioner or from the management hence, requested to set aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration. 7. Considering the submissions without going to the merits of the case, as the respondents have not called for records before passing the said orders hence, the impugned order dated 09.05.2001 is set aside directing the first respondent to reconsider the issue once again after getting entire record from the third respondent. 8. It is needless to say that in view of interim orders passed by this Court on 16.08.2001, the petitioner is continuing and the respondents are directed to release his salaries. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Neeraj (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad