Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135038 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53874 of 2010 Petitioner :- C/M Vyantanand Sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai,Y.K. Agrawal,Yogesh Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- L. P. Singh,Mani Shankar,Rajesh Kumar Dubey,V. B. Mishra Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the committee of management - Vyantanand Sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya through its Chairman, questioning the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, approving the appointment of the 5th respondent. 3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has passed interim order on 06.09.2010 which reads as follows: "It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that father of Ashok Kumar Gupta was the Manager of institution and large scale of manipulation has been made by him in his appointment. The University concerned on 15.7.2006 in verification had submitted report that appointment of Ashok Kumar Gupta is fictitious. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ignoring said aspect of the matter, orders have been passed for ensuring salary in favour of incumbent whose appointment is on the face of fictitious. The argument advanced requires consideration by this Court. Consequently, till the next date, in view of the report submitted by the University concerned, no salary shall be ensured to Ashok Kumar Gupta." 4. The above said interim order was passed by this Court based on inquiry report of the 2nd respondent dated 15.07.2006. The said inquiry report is against appointment of the 5th respondent - Ashok Kumar Gupta who was appointed based on large scale of manipulation done by the manager of the institution. 5. But surprisingly the said manager of the institution is not made a party to this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent has submitted that in view of the interim order dated 06.09.2010 passed by this Court, the respondents have neither released salaries nor permitted to work but he has contended that the petitioner has no locus standi for filing the present writ petition. 7. Considering submissions of both the counsels and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner has made several allegations against the manager of the institution and also manipulation of the records in appointing the 5th respondent but surprisingly, the said manager is not a party to the writ petition. Apart from that, as approval of appointment of the 5th respondent was stayed by this Court on 06.09.2010, in this said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. 8. However, the petitioner is directed to approach the 3rd respondent against approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent. As allegations are made against the manager of the institution, the 3rd respondent may issue notice to the manager of the institution as well as the 5th respondent and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. As interim order was passed by this Court on 06.09.2010 based on the allegations made with regard to approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent may not take such observations while considering the complaint made by the petitioner and deciding the issue in the present case. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad