Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66054 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28283 of 2014 Petitioner :- Rajendra Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Prabhakar Awasthi Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Nitish Shakya, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent whereby the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 02.08.2095 has been revoked and consequential order dated 17.01.2014 has been made. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court considering submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, has passed the following order on 29.05.2014: “1. It is not the case of Committee of Management and District Inspector of Schools that promotion of petitioner ought not to have been made at all but it is admitted that he was senior most and entitled for promotion while impugned order has been passed cancelling promotion made by Authorised Controller in 1995. 2. In my view, the matter requires consideration. 3. Respondents no.1 to 4 are represented by learned Standing Counsel and respondent no.5 is represented by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate. They pray for and are allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 4. Until further orders, operation of impugned orders dated 20.12.2013 and 17.01.2014 (Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.” 4. Record reveals that petitioner was appointed as assistant clerk in the 5th respondent - Institution on 18.03.1981. One P.D. Shukla who was head clerk in the said institution, retired on 31.07.1993. As the petitioner was senior most assistant clerk in the said institution, he was authorized to work as head clerk in the resulted vacancy. Accordingly, the petitioner discharged his duties as head clerk from 01.08.1993 onwards. 5. On 10.07.1995, the authorized controller of the institution sent a proposal recommending the petitioner to the post of head clerk w.e.f. 01.08.1993. Considering the said proposal, the authority has passed promotional order on 02.08.1995 permitting the petitioner to discharge his duties as head clerk and since then the petitioner has been paid salary attached to the post of head clerk. Further, the case of the petitioner was also considered for payment of salary and ACP w.e.f. 21.02.2012 onwards. 6. Surprisingly, based on the complaint made by the Manager of the 5th respondent - Institution, dated 27.08.2013 stating therein that in view of the dismissal order passed by this Court with regard to appointment of D.B. Gupta as In-charge Principal, all the proposals which were sent by D.B. Gupta may be cancelled. Based on the said complaint, the respondents have passed the impugned orders 20.12.2013 and 17.01.2014 which are reproduced herein under respectively: "…... माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक न्य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ाय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ालय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक के आदेश दिनांक आदे आदेश दिनांक श दिनांक दिदनांक 22.11.94 एवं 21.7.95 के आदेश दिनांक समादर में श्री में श्री श दिनांक ्र में श्रीी र में श्रीाजे आदेश दिनांक न्द्र में श्री पाल की प्र में श्रीधान दिलदिपक के आदेश दिनांक पद पर में श्री इस काय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ालय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक के आदेश दिनांक पत्र में श्रीांक- ई (2) 4642-44/95-96 दिदनांक 02.08.95 द्वार में श्रीा की गय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ी पदोन्नदित आदे आदेश दिनांक श दिनांक का अनुमोदन दिर में श्रीकाल दिकय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ा जाता है। हस्ताक्षर में श्री -अस्पष्ट ( एन०डी० वमा) दिजला दिवद्यालय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक दिनर में श्रीीक्षक श दिनांक ाहजहांपुर में श्री। दिदनांक-20 दिदसम्बर में श्री-13” " संस्था प्र में श्रीबन्धक द्वार में श्रीा उपलब्ध कर में श्रीाय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक े आदेश दिनांक गय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक े आदेश दिनांक पत्र में श्रीाजात2 के आदेश दिनांक आधार में श्री पर में श्री श दिनांक ्र में श्रीी र में श्रीाजे आदेश दिनांक न्द्र में श्रीपाल का सहाय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक क दिलदिपक पद पर में श्री दिनम्नवत वे आदेश दिनांक तन दिनधादिर में श्रीत / संश दिनांक ोदिधत दिकय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ा जाता हैः- दिदनॉक 01-08-93 ( पदोन्नदित की दितदिथ) को प्र में श्रीधान दिलदिपक वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू० 1200-2040 में श्री प्र में श्रीाप्त मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1200/- दिदनॉक 01-08-93 को प्र में श्रीधान दिलदिपक पद पर में श्री पदोन्नदित से आदेश दिनांक पूव सहा०दिलदिपक वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०- 950-1500 में श्री प्र में श्रीाप्त / आहदिर में श्रीत मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1110/- दिदनॉक 01-01-94 को सहा० दिलदिपक वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-950-1500 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1130/- दिदनॉक 01-01-95 को सहा० दिलदिपक वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-950-1500 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1150/- दिदनॉक 01-01-96 को सहा० दिलदिपक वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-950-1500 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1175/- दिदनॉक 01-01-1996 से आदेश दिनांक लागू पुनर में श्रीीदिक्षत वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-75-3950-80-4590 में श्री दिवकल्प की दितदिथ 01-01-1996 को दिनधादिर में श्रीत मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-3650/- दिदनॉक 01-01-97 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-3725/- दिदनॉक 01-01-98 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-3800/- दिदनॉक 01-01-99 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-3875/- 2 of 6 दिदनॉक 01-01-2000 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-3950/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2001 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4030/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2002 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4110/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2003 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4190/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2004 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4270/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2005 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4350/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2006 को वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-4590 में श्री दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4430/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2006 से आदेश दिनांक लागू पुनर में श्रीीदिक्षत वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान में श्री वे आदेश दिनांक तन दिनधार में श्रीण- दिवकल्प दितदिथ-01-01-2006 वतमान वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान रू०-3050-75-3950-80-4590 पुनर में श्रीीदिक्षत वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान / वे आदेश दिनांक तन बैन्ड-पी०बी०-1, रू०-5200-20200 ग्र में श्रीे आदेश दिनांक ड वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-1900/- दिदनॉक 01-01-2006 के आदेश दिनांक मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन रू०-4430/- के आदेश दिनांक अनुसार में श्री दिदनॉक/ वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान में श्री वे आदेश दिनांक तन ग्र में श्रीे आदेश दिनांक ड वे आदेश दिनांक तन य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ोग-मूल वे आदेश दिनांक तन दिववर में श्रीण- 01-01-06 8240 1900 10140 दिवकल्प की दितदिथ को पुनर में श्रीीदिक्षत वे आदेश दिनांक तनमान में श्री दिनधादिर में श्रीत वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-06 8550 1900 10450 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-07 8870 1900 10770 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-08 9200 1900 11100 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-09 9540 1900 11440 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-10 9890 1900 11790 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-11 10250 1900 12150 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-11 10620 1900 12520 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन 01-07-13 11000 1900 12900 वे आदेश दिनांक तन वृद्दिध की दितदिथ को दे आदेश दिनांक य उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक वे आदेश दिनांक तन पूव दिनधादिर में श्रीत वे आदेश दिनांक तन उक्त सीमा तक संश दिनांक ोदिधत समझे आदेश दिनांक जाय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक ें श्री।" 7. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed on the basis of the complaint made by the then Manager are nothing to do with the petitioner's appointment and promotion. In fact, only grievance in the complaint is that one D.B. Gupta 3 of 6 was prohibited to act as Principal of the Institution, the same was assailed before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8442 of 1993 and the said writ petition was dismissed. In the said circumstances, action which was taken in the interregnum period is to be treated as irregular and illegal. Hence, he made an application to recall promotional order which was issued in favour of the petitioner. Even after the said complaint, no opportunity was given to the petitioner and records were also not taken into consideration. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior most assistant clerk in the Institution and he was officiating to work as head clerk consequent to retirement of one P.D. Shukla from 01.08.1993 onwards. In fact, the same is evident from promotional order of the petitioner dated 02.08.1995. Without considering the said fact and without verifying the records, only based on the complained made by the then Manager of the Institution that too litigation which is quoted in the complaint itself is pertaining to D.B. Gupta, officiating Principal of the said Institution. Hence, the impugned orders are not only illegal but also contrary to the records. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 10. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents has relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit dated 14.07.2014 mainly on paragraph no.2A which reads as under: “That before giving parawise reply to the contents of writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the R.V.M. Inter College, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur is recognized and aided institution upto High School level and the provision of Payment of Salary Act 1971 as amended in the year 2007 are fully applicable on the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution. It is stated that Sri Rajendra Pal the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk in R.V.M. Inter College, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur on 18.3.1981. In the year 1994, the Joint Director of Education, IIIrd Region, Bareilly under the provisions of Payment of Salary Act 1971 appointed Sri Ram Chandra Sharma as Prabandh Sanchalak for 6 months vide order dated 29.9.1994 and extended the period for further 6 months. Against which the committee of management filed writ petition no. 37042/1994 before this Hon'ble Court, in which this 4 of 6 Hon'ble Court passed the order dated 22.11.1994 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 29.9.1994. It is further stated that the then Principal Sri D.B. Gupta was suspended on 12.8.1991 and Sri Rajendra Singh was giving officiating charge of principal of the institution and his signature was attested. It is stated that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition no. 8442/1993, the entry of Sri Gupta was prohibited in the Vidyalaya and the proposal of termination of service of Sri Gupta was approved by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad. Aggrieved by this, Sri Gupta filed writ petition no. 8442/1993 before this Hon'ble Court, which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 19.7.1995. It is stated that the papers regarding promotion of the petitioner on the post Head Clerk were sent by Sri D.B.Gupta on 10.7.1995, while the appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak was stayed by this Hon'ble Court and the entry of Sri Gupta was prohibited in the Vidyalaya, even then, the petitioner by concealing the correct facts, got approved his promotion on the post of Head Clerk by the then District Inspector of Schools on 2.8.1995. It is stated that any work done by the Prabandh Sanchalak after staying the effect and operation of order 29.9.1994 appointing prabandh Sanchalak by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 22.11.1994, is nothing and also against the order passed by this Hon'ble Court” 11. Based on the above averments, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that admittedly the appointment of D.B. Gupta as officiating Principal of the Institution is prohibited by the order of the authority and the said order was assailed before this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8442 of 1993, which was dismissed. Once the appointment of D.B. Gupta is not in accordance with Rules, the proposal which was sent by D.B. Gupta is irregular. It is admitted that the petitioner's promotion was affected by proposal sent by D.B. Gupta and hence the same was brought to the notice of the authority. Therefore, the authority cancelled /revoked the promotion order which was issued in favour of the petitioner. As per Rules, whenever the authority came to the notice of irregularity, the authority is entitled to correct the same. 12. As per records, it is admitted that the proposal sent by D.B. Gupta as officiating Principal is not in conformity with the Rules. Hence, the impugned orders are valid and the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed. Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel has requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5 of 6 13. Considering the submissions and perusal of the records shows that the petitioner was appointed as assistant clerk in the said Institution on 18.03.1981 as per procedure contemplated under the Act and he was permitted to discharge his duties as head clerk from 01.08.1993 as he being senior most assistant clerk in the Institution. Once the petitioner is senior most assistant clerk in the Institution and as per Rules, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of head clerk in the resulted vacancy. Hence, there is no deviation to the records and no other claim is pending for the said post from third party. Once the proposal is sent by officiating Principal as on that date cannot be said to be as irregular proposal though the said D.B. Gupta, officiating Principal may be prohibited by the authorities for various reasons that cannot be grounded for revocation of legal order passed in favour of the petitioner when there is no factual dispute with regard to seniority or his appointment into original post, the respondent ought not have to interfered or revoked the order passed in favour of the petitioner as he is legally entitled for his promotion. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders are not only contrary to the records but also are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, both orders impugned in the present writ petition are set aside. 14. In view of the interim direction granted by this Court on 29.05.2014, it is admitted fact that the petitioner has been continued as head clerk, hence he is entitled for salary as well as post retiral benefits. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) 6 of 6 Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad