Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
IRSHAD ALI
Awadhesh Chandar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thr. Secy. Basice Education – Respondent
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 filed for the payment of salary with effect from 1.7.1999 of the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution being appointed against sanctioned post.
4. The petitioner by following due procedure of law was granted appointment on 25.6.1999. The petitioner joined services in pursuance to the appointment letter on 1.7.1999. Papers for the grant of approval were sent to the District Basic Education Officer on 7.4.20025 and on
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
