Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Two vacancies of class IV were available in Ganna Vikas Intermediate College, Munderwa, District Basti, which is recognized and aided institution. Sri Ram Bhaj Singh and Sri Vishram were appointed on the aforesaid post and were also granted financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. However, Sri Ram Bhaj Singh submitted his resignation on 30.9.1986 which was accepted. The college notified the vacancy on the Notice Board as well as local Employment Exchange against which the petitioner applied. He was selected and appointed by the Principal of the college vide order dated 27.10.1986. It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, respondent No. 1 had also approved the appointment of the petitioner in the vacancy so caused by the resignation of Sri Ram Bhaj Singh.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden vide order dated 20th July, 1989 his services were terminated by the Principal and on enquiry he was informed that according to the DIOS the vacancy was not advertised in a Newspaper having wide circulation in the area and the appointment was not approved and as such approval to the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn by the DIOS.

4. The impugned order is being challenged on the ground that there was no requirement under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder to advertise the vacancies of class IV employees in Newspaper at the relevant time and that the DIOS does not have any jurisdiction to recall any approval granted without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such the impugned order of termination passed by respondent No. 2 pursuant to the directions of the DIOS is liable to be quashed being illegal.

5. The Standing Counsel relying upon the averments made in paragraphs 3, 5 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DIOS, Basti has submitted that though financial sanction was granted to the appointment of Sri Ram Bhaj Singh but in so far as the appointment of Sri Bharat Ram Chaudhary, the petitioner is concerned, neither any financial sanction was granted nor his appointment was approved by the DIOS. On the contrary, the Principal of the college managed to sign the salary bill of Sri Bharat Ram Chaudhary, the petitioner instead of Sri Ram Bhaj Singh and it was paid to him under mistake. However, when the correct facts came to the knowledge of the DIOS that the appointment of Sri Bharat Ram Chaudhary made by the Principal is illegal and financial sanction granted in favour of Sri Ram Bhaj was also withdrawn as such the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a confirmed employee of the institution. It is stated that on the basis of the order of the DIOS dated 10.7.89 a consequential order was passed by the Principal terminating the services of the petitioner. Copy of the order has been appended as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

6. It is lastly urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly paid up to the month of July, 1989 and thus the GPF and Insurance amount was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner, though the petitioner was not an employee of the institution. The Principal never replied to the query made by the DIOS, Basti vide letter dated 29.4.89, which is as under :

Þizs"kd]

ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd]

cLrhA

lsok esa]

iz/kkukpk;Z]

xUuk fodkl b.Vj dkyst] eq.Msjok

tuin&cLrhA

i=kad@1635@89&90 fnukad 29-04-89

fo"k; % prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dh vfu;fer fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

vkius vius vkns’k la0@770&,p&@85&86 fnukad 8&2&1986 }kjk nks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr fcuk foKkiu vkfn ds euekuh rkSj ij fd;k gSA mi f’k{kk funs’kd lIre e.My xksj[kiqj dh tkap esa ;g fu;qfDr vfu;fer ik;h x;h gSA

Ñi;k dkj.k crk;sa fd D;ksa u bl fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dh x;h lgefr i=kad 21488&89&@85&86 fnukad 7&3&86 fujLr dj nh tk;A viuk mRrj nks lRikg ds Hkhrj vo’; nsA vU;