Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75510-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 247 of 2025 Appellant :- Indra Deo Pandit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- R. K. Singh Kaosik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivendu Ojha Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2025, whereby the order passed by the Director disapproving the appointment of appellant is sustained. 2. It transpires that Budh Snatakkotar Mahavidyalaya, Kushi Nagar is a recognized aided degree college. A post of Assistant Accountant in Class-III had fallen vacant in respect of which advertisement was issued in newspaper Dainik Jagran in February, 1990. According to appellant he was selected by the Selection Committee on 7.4.1990. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was also accepted by the Committee of Management on 9.4.1990. His appointment was ultimately approved by the Regional Higher Education Officer on 11.9.1996. The appellant started working and also received salary, whereafter his salary was discontinued on the complaint made that the appointment was fraudulently secured in connivance with Principal. The matter came to this Court earlier and the Director was required to adjudicate the claim of the appellant. The Director, consequently, passed an order on 2.9.2005. This order was challenged by the Managing Committee on the ground that opportunity of hearing had not been given to it and facts were not correctly placed. The writ petition was dismissed. However, special appeal filed in the matter being Special Appeal No.2433 of 2011 was allowed and the order of Director was set aside with the further direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and re-determination. It is thereafter that the order impugned has been passed by the Director disapproving the claim of the appellant. 3. The Director in his order under challenge before the learned Single Judge has noticed the facts of the case according to which though the appellant claimed appointment in April, 1990 but the appointment letter was issued by the Principal who was not the competent authority. Competent authority to appoint a Class-III employee was the Committee of Management. No appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellant by the Committee of Management. 4. Subsequent advertisements were issued in the year 1991 and 1992 for filling up of the same post. This fact has been taken as a circumstance to doubt the appellant's claim, inasmuch as if the post was already filled there was no occasion for issuing subsequent advertisements for filling up of the same post. 5. The appellant had also filed a writ petition in the year 1994 claiming his status as a daily wager with the prayer to direct the authorities to consider appellant's claim for regularization. This writ petition was entertained and counter affidavits were called. It is thereafter that the appellant withdrew the writ petition. These facts and other attending circumstances have been relied upon by the Director to hold that the claim of appointment of appellant is not based on valid grounds. It has also been observed that none of the records relating to selection proceedings are otherwise available with the authorities. Learned Single Judge has noticed these facts and thereafter rejected the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment letter was inadvertently issued by the Principal and that the Committee of Management had later approved such appointment. It is also submitted that advertisement of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently issued and were never acted upon. It is further submitted that the petition filed by the appellant in the year 1994 inadvertently mentioned appellant's status as a daily wager employee and that is why it was later withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the authorities before the Director have specifically admitted the claim of appellant for appointment and that is why earlier order was passed by the Director on 2.9.2005. It is lastly urged that the appeal of the Committee of Management was allowed only on the ground that opportunity of hearing was denied and findings contained in the previous order of Director were not otherwise reversed. Submission is that since the appellant has otherwise superannuated in the year 2017, as such the claim of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the contrary view taken by the Director, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained. 7. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the inherent contradictions in the claim of appellant clearly exposes the falsity of the case set up by the appellant and has rightly been taken as a circumstance to non- suit the present appellant. 8. We have heard Sri R.K. Singh Kaosik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior counsel for the Committee of Management. Sri D.K. Tiwari has appeared for the State authorities. We have carefully perused the materials on record. 9. As per the appellant a substantive vacancy on the post of Assistant Accountant had arisen in the institution concerned. This vacancy was to be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the statute of the Gorakhpur University. The advertisement was issued on 2.2.1990 requiring applications to be submitted within 21 days. However, the selection proceedings are alleged to have been undertaken on 7.4.1990. Original records relating to such selection proceedings are not available in the office of the concerned respondent. 10. According to appellant he was selected by the Selection Committee and appointed by the Principal. This appointment allegedly was made pursuant to orders of the Managing Committee. The appointment letter is at page no.336 of the paper book which is issued by the Principal. Although it says that the selection has been approved by the Selection Committee but no resolution of the Managing Committee is referred to in the appointment letter of the Principal. This order also records that approval has not been granted to the appointment of the appellant. 11. Under the statute appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant could be offered only by the Managing Committee. The Principal had no authority to issue any such appointment. Though it is alleged that the appellant joined pursuant to such substantive appointment on 27.7.1990 but it remains admitted that till 1996 neither his appointment was approved nor he received any salary from the University. 12. What is relevant to note is that though appellant claims that he was appointed in July, 1990 pursuant to his selection on 7.4.1990, yet the post was again advertised for substantive appointment in 1991 and 1992. In the event, this post was already filled with the appointment of the appellant there is no reason as to why the post would be re-advertised. Moreover, the appellant himself filed a writ petition in 1994 in which he made no reference to his selection or appointment. In his writ petition of 1994 the appellant only claimed appointment on daily wage basis and sought his regularization. Though an attempt is made to explain such lapses on the ground that the appointment letter was inadvertently issued and that no appointment was actually made in 1991 and 1992, and that the writ petition was filed due to a misconceived advice but we are not inclined to accept such plea of the appellant. The appellant admittedly is a graduate and once he came to this Court for filing of the writ petition and made his signatures it is expected that he was aware of the contents of the affidavit. We fail to understand as to how someone could claim himself to be a daily wager when he had already been substantively appointed. The two versions of the appellant are clearly contrary to each other. It exposes the falsity of the case set up by the appellant. Though certain documents are relied upon to contend that the Selection Committee also consisted of the then D.I.O.S. who had verified his signatures but the Director in his order under challenge has recorded that no original records relating to selection in question are available. In the event, the D.I.O.S. had himself participated in the selection proceedings it was expected that the appointment would be approved soon after it was made. The fact that such appointment was not approved for six years and subsequent advertisements were issued clearly casts a serious doubt upon the claim of the appellant. 13. We are otherwise informed that the Principal who had issued the appointment letter was himself implicated in a criminal case and he was also terminated which order attained finality right up to the Supreme Court. FIR has also been lodged against the Principal in which charge-sheet etc is alleged to have been submitted. 14. Viewed in the context of the facts noticed above, we find that the order of the Director disapproving the claim of appellant's appointment, as affirmed by learned Single Judge, is based on appreciation of materials available on record and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. No interference in the appeal is called for. Special appeal is, consequently, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad