Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
IRSHAD ALI
Awadhesh Chandar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thr. Secy. Basice Education – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice to opposite party no. 6 deemed sufficient (Para 1) |
| 2. petition for salary authorization and history (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for salary approval and priorities (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. rules for approval of appointments (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. deemed approval concept established (Para 15) |
| 6. entitlement to salary confirmed (Para 18) |
| 7. final order for regular salary payments (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Seen office report dated 21.01.2019. As per report dated 3.10.2007 notice issued to opposite party no.6 through speed post vide dispatch no.8179 dated 4.10.2007. As per dispatch register available in dispatch section, neither any undelivered/ unserved envelop has been found to be returned back as per records available in Section nor any power has been filed as per records shown in database of computer. In view of the aforesaid, notice upon opposite party no.6 is deemed sufficient.
2. Heard Shri G.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
3. The present writ petition has been
Deemed approval for teacher appointments under Rule 10(5) of U.P. recruitment rules entitles the petitioner to salary from the date of its occurrence, especially after the institution is recognized u....
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
An appointment without prior approval under Section 101 of the Regulation would be a nullity in so far as it purports to bind the State Government to grant aid to the institution concerned for paymen....
Formal approval from competent authorities is essential for salary entitlements, but lack of documentation does not negate previously granted approvals.
Long-standing appointments cannot be invalidated without evidence of wrongdoing, emphasizing stability in employment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
