# (2013) 1 ILRA 406 - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 406 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-03-08 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2013-1-ilra-406-42516 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art.-226- Cancellation of appointment of A.B.R.C.- made by Distt. Basic Education Officer-on stop gap arrangement basis-till regular selection made-argument unless regular selection made-can not be ousted-held-in absence of provision regarding stop gap arrangement -appointment itself illegalcancellation-held-proper. Held: Para-6 I have perused the appointment order which categorically recites that the petitioner was being appointed till selections are held. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the prevalent rules. The Government Order nowhere indicates that the Basic Education Officer has the authority to make an appointment by way of a stop gap arrangement. In the circumstances, appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the Government Order. ## Text 406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 is convicted on criminal charge u/s 366/376 I.P.C. involving offence of moral turpitude until the order of conviction is set aside in pending appeal or other proceeding, its effect and impact cannot be completely wiped off or ceased to operate merely because of execution of sentence or order appealed against was suspended or stayed and the petitioner was released on bail during the pendency of said appeal. However, in case petitioner's appeal would be allowed and he would be exonerated from the criminal charge or acquitted in appeal or other proceeding, it will always be open for the petitioner to approach the District Judge, Allahabad, who in turn will pass appropriate order. But in given facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage it is very difficult for this Court to interfere in the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner. 17. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13238 Of 2013 Mahip Narayan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Girijesh Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri Jay Ram Pandey Constitution of India, Art.-226- Cancellation of appointment of A.B.R.C.- made by Distt. Basic Education Officer-on stop gap arrangement basis-till regular selection made-argument unless regular selection made-can not be ousted-held-in absence of provision regarding stop gap arrangement -appointment itself illegalcancellation-held-proper. Held: Para-6 I have perused the appointment order which categorically recites that the petitioner was being appointed till selections are held. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the prevalent rules. The Government Order nowhere indicates that the Basic Education Officer has the authority to make an appointment by way of a stop gap arrangement. In the circumstances, appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the Government Order. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who prays for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2012 and 20.2.2013 whereby his continuance as an Assistant Block Resource Coordinator has been annulled on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with rules. 2. The contention of Sri Tripathi, is that this order has been passed at the behest of the direction issued by the District Magistrate who is no authority in the matter, and therefore, the order having been passed on the dictate of the superior authority who is not the statutory authority amounts to surrender of jurisdiction. He therefore contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 1 All Mahip Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 407 3. It is further stated in Para 36 as an alternative argument that the petitioner's engagement was in a stop gap arrangement as A.B.R.C. (English) till a regular selection is made in terms of the Government Order applicable. It has been stated that no regular selection has been held so far. He contends that even otherwise the petitioner should be made to continue till such arrangement is made and therefore the impugned order is erroneous. 4. Having heard Sri Tewari, the engagement of a Block Resource Coordinator or an Assistant is governed by the provisions of the relevant Government Orders one of them being dated 2nd February, 2011 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 5. It is admitted to the petitioner that he was never selected or appointed in terms of the procedure prescribed under the said Government Order. His appointment by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur was by way of a stop gap arrangement vide order dated 22nd July, 2011 till selections are held in accordance with the same. 6. I have perused the appointment order which categorically recites that the petitioner was being appointed till selections are held. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the prevalent rules. The Government Order nowhere indicates that the Basic Education Officer has the authority to make an appointment by way of a stop gap arrangement. In the circumstances, appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the Government Order. 7. The issue therefore as to whether the District Magistrate had issued a direction or not to the Basic Education Officer becomes purely academic and irrelevant on the facts of the present case when the appointment cannot be sustained on merits. In view of the reasons given hereinabove the discontinuance of the petitioner therefore does not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as, fresh selections have to be held by the authority in accordance with the said Government Order. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. A feeble opposition had been raised to the qualification of the petitioner that he is a science graduate and therefore he could not have been appointed as a coordinator in the subject of English. Since the petitioner's very appointment is not founded on the procedure prescribed, therefore, it is not necessary to go into this question. 9. The writ petition is dismissed with the said observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2013. BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13702 Of 2013 Khurkhur and another ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents