Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121622 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33436 of 2008 Petitioner :- Sanjay Sonkar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- ,Ashok Kumar Singh,Babu Lal Ram,Gyanendra Kumar,R.K. Ojha,Ram Yash Singh Chauhan,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,Rakesh Kumar Singh,V.K.Singh Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to grant approval of payment of salary to the petitioners as Peon (Class 4th employee) Janta Inter college, Bhala (Paliwar), Ghazipur since their respective joining on 22/23.4.2008. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful woking of petitioners as Peon (Class 4th employee) Janta Inter college, Bhala (Paliwar), Ghazipur in compliance with alleged order dated 2.4.2008 passed by respondent no.2." 3. Subsequently, petitioners have amended the writ petition and questioned the orders dated 2.4.2008 and 10.06.2008. 4. As per the averments made in the writ petition, respondent no.3 has obtained permission for filling up of the post vide order dated 31.01.2008 and accordingly, on 6.4.2008, a selection committee was constituted and accordingly, they have joined their duties. 5. When the respondents have not considered for approval of the said appointments, the petitioners have filed present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, after notice, the respondents have filed the counter affidavit on 17.10.2008. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents have passed the order on 2.4.2008 withdrawing the permission for filling up of the said post. Hence, by way of amendment the said orders were assailed in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent no.3-principal has obtained permission and as directed by the second respondent, as per the provision of the Act, they have made an advertisement and the petitioners were subjected to the selection process and selected based on the merit. Once, the petitioners are selected and appointed, the respondents are not entitled to withdraw permission which was already granted. Hence, the orders passed by the second respondent on 2.4.2008 are contrary to the provision of the Act. 7. In fact, as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has entertained the objection/complaint made by the committee of management i.e. respondent no.4 herein and unilaterally cancelled the permission granted as per the provision of the Act, which respondent no.2 has no authority. According to the provision of the Act, respondent no.3 is the competent authority to fill up the Class-IV post. Hence, the committee of management has no role in appointment of Class-IV. In the said circumstances, the second respondent ought not to have entertained the complaint made by respondent no.4 and should not withdraw the permission which was validly granted to respondent no.3. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that based on the averments made in the counter affidavit stating that respondents have got complaint from respondent no.4 and thereafter, respondent no.3-principal has obtained permission by fraud to fill up the reservation quota, in fact the post is not for reserved candidate. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Regulations 101 to 107 stipulates the action on permission, accordingly, the second respondent has granted permission and after getting objection/complaint from the fourth respondent, he rightly cancelled the permission vide order dated 2.4.2008. Once, the permission is withdrawn, the selections are contrary to Regulations 101 to 107, hence, the approval was not granted. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, clearly stipulates that respondent no.3 is not entitled to pass orders unilaterally based on the complaint made by the fourth respondent and after selections, respondent no.2 has no authority to cancel the permission unilaterally. Even on perusal of the record clearly discloses that before withdrawal of the permission, the second respondent has not issued any notice either to the petitioners or to third respondent. 10. In the said circumstances, the matter is remitted to respondent no.2 to consider the entire record after issuing notice to the petitioners and respondent no.3 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad