# Ajay Pratap Rai v. District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 444
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-03-15
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 200 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-pratap-rai-v-district-basic-education-officer-jaunpur-and-others-40941
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Doctrine of Merger-upgradation of junior
High
School
to
High
School
then
Intermediate-No
existence
of
Junior
High
School-or
the
High
School-No
question of appointment of Head Master
of Junior High School-except under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Inter
Mediate
Education Act 1921.

Held: Para 13

The contention of Shri Saxena, therefore,
to the effect that institution did not loose
its identity as a Junior High School has to
be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, we
are of the considered opinion that
neither the selection nor appointment of
the appellant nor the appointment of the
respondent no.3 was in order and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge was
perfectly justified in holding that no
selection or appointment has been held
in accordance with law to the post of
Head of the Institution.

(B)
Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Recovery of Salary-petitioner no eligible
for the post of head of institution-applied
and got appointed as Head Master-Not
occasion for making application for Head
Master in Junior High School-payment of
salary-complete fraud on statute in
contravention
of
law-recovery
held
proper.

Held: Para 20

In sum and substance, we are of the
view
that
after
upgradation
of
an
institution from Junior High School to
High School and then to Intermediate,
the lower section of the institution, i.e.
Junior High School looses its existence
and merges into the higher section and
in that eventuality, the question of
making the appointment of Head Master
for the Junior High School, a Principal for
the High School and another Principal to
run the Intermediate classes would lead
to
complete
chaotic
situation
and
absurdity. Thus, the appointment on the
post of Head Master could not be made.
The appellant did not possess the
eligibility, i.e. experience as required
under the law in making an application
to the said post and had illegally been
appointed.
Further,
the
serious
illegality/irregularity in advertising the
vacancy existed and the possibility of
committing fraud cannot be ruled out. As
the appointment of the appellant had
been made in total violation of law and
without possessing the eligibility, the
recovery of salary received by him in
contravention of the order passed by the
Statutory Authority does not warrant any
interference.
2 All] Ajay Pratap Rai V. Distt. Basic Education Officer and others
445

## Text

444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Moreover they could not show any
exemplar which may entitle him more
compensation than awarded by the
Reference Court.

11. The appeals fail and are
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 200 of 2007

Ajay Pratap Rai ...Respondent-Appellant
Versus
District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur
and others
 ...Petitioner-Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.N. Saksena
Sri R.M. Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri P.N. Triapthi
S.C.

(A)
Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Doctrine of Merger-upgradation of junior
High
School
to
High
School
then
Intermediate-No
existence
of
Junior
High
School-or
the
High
School-No
question of appointment of Head Master
of Junior High School-except under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Inter
Mediate
Education Act 1921.

Held: Para 13

The contention of Shri Saxena, therefore,
to the effect that institution did not loose
its identity as a Junior High School has to
be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, we
are of the considered opinion that
neither the selection nor appointment of
the appellant nor the appointment of the
respondent no.3 was in order and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge was
perfectly justified in holding that no
selection or appointment has been held
in accordance with law to the post of
Head of the Institution.

(B)
Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Recovery of Salary-petitioner no eligible
for the post of head of institution-applied
and got appointed as Head Master-Not
occasion for making application for Head
Master in Junior High School-payment of
salary-complete fraud on statute in
contravention
of
law-recovery
held
proper.

Held: Para 20

In sum and substance, we are of the
view
that
after
upgradation
of
an
institution from Junior High School to
High School and then to Intermediate,
the lower section of the institution, i.e.
Junior High School looses its existence
and merges into the higher section and
in that eventuality, the question of
making the appointment of Head Master
for the Junior High School, a Principal for
the High School and another Principal to
run the Intermediate classes would lead
to
complete
chaotic
situation
and
absurdity. Thus, the appointment on the
post of Head Master could not be made.
The appellant did not possess the
eligibility, i.e. experience as required
under the law in making an application
to the said post and had illegally been
appointed.
Further,
the
serious
illegality/irregularity in advertising the
vacancy existed and the possibility of
committing fraud cannot be ruled out. As
the appointment of the appellant had
been made in total violation of law and
without possessing the eligibility, the
recovery of salary received by him in
contravention of the order passed by the
Statutory Authority does not warrant any
interference.
2 All] Ajay Pratap Rai V. Distt. Basic Education Officer and others
445
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr.B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. The dispute in this Special Appeal
is about the post of the Head of the
Institution,
namely,
Kisan
PurVa
MadhyamiK Vidyalaya, Itaili, Gazna
Kudda, District Jaunpur which post is
being claimed by the appellant Ajai
Pratap Rai and respondent no.3 Shri
Krishna Dixit respectively. The judgment
under appeal rejects the claim of the
appellant as well as the respondent no.3
and directs that the teacher next to the
respondent no.3 in seniority shall be
handed over charge as the Head of the
Institution till the respondent no.3 is not
cleared of the charges against him or till a
permanent regular selection is made in
accordance with law. The learned Single
Judge has also recorded a finding that the
appellant and respondent no.3 as well as
the then District Basic Education Officer
have indulged in certain malpractices for
which a direction has been issued to
launch criminal prosecution against them
and other directions have been issued in
respect of the connected writ petition
pertaining to the management of the
institution
with
which
the
present
appellant is not concerned.

2. The facts of the case have already
been set out in detail in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and, therefore,
are not being exhaustively reproduced.
However, bare minimum facts which are
necessary
for
adjudication
of
the
controversy are that the institution was
initially a Junior High School recognized
and governed by the U.P. Basic Education
Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the ''Act
1972'). The said institution applied for
recognition as a High School and was
awarded the said status with effect from
25.01.1993.
Further
the
institution
succeeded in promoting itself into an
Intermediate College with effect from
16.01.1999 for which a recognition was
granted under the provisions of the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter called the ''Act 1921'). On
30th June, 1999, the Head Master of the
institution Shri H.P. Maurya attained the
age of superannuation as a result whereof
a vacancy occurred on the said post. The
respondent no.3 Shri Krishna Dixit is
stated to have been handed over the
charge as he was the next senior most
teacher of the institution to function on
the said post. The handing over charge
was preceded by an alleged advertisement
dated 06.06.1999 stated to have been
issued by the then Manager and it is
alleged
that
the
signatures
of
the
respondent no.3 were attested by the
educational authorities on 13.07.1999. It
appears that the respondent no.3 was
seeking a declaration of his status as Head
Master of the institution for which he had
approached the District Basic Education
Officer. Having failed to receive any
response from him, the respondent no.3
filed Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000,
which was disposed of on 11.01.2000
with a direction to the District Basic
Education
Officer
to
decide
the
representation of the respondent no.3 in
respect of his claim to the post of Head
Master. From the records, it appears that
in December 2002/January 2003, the
Basic Education Officer attested the
signatures of respondent no.3.

3. In between, there appears to have
been a dispute with regard to the
management of the institution and one
Raja Ram Vishwakarma claimed himself
to be the Manager of the institution and a
rival claim was set up by Subhash
Chandra Yadav. Both these persons
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
staked their claims and the dispute came
to this Court in several writ petitions
which have been referred to in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. For
the purposes of this controversy, suffice
would be to say that Shri Raja Ram
Vishwakarma as a Manager claimed that
he appointed the appellant Ajai Pratap
Rai. The said alleged appointment of the
appellant is stated to have been approved
on 07.03.2003 by the District Basic
Education Officer, which was challenged
by the respondent no.3 in Writ Petition
No. 14612 of 2003, which has given rise
to the present Special Appeal. An order of
status quo was passed on 21st May, 2003,
yet the salary has been disbursed by the
District Basic Education Officer to the
appellant. The District Inspector of
Schools intervened and issued directions
in favour of respondent no.3 which was
reviewed by him on 03.03.2006. The
order dated 7th March, 2003 had been
assailed by the respondent no.3 and the
order
dated
03.03.2006
was
again
challenged by the respondent no.3 in Writ
Petition No. 16925 of 2006, which has
also been disposed by the same judgment
of the learned Single Judge.

4. The relief claimed in this Special
Appeal is confined only to the judgment
insofar as it rejects the claim of the
appellant in Writ Petition No. 14612 of
2003 and a prayer has been made to
dismiss the said writ petition filed by
respondent no.3. In essence, the relief
claimed is that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge be set aside and the
appellant be permitted to continue as
Head of the Institution.

5. We have heard Shri P.N. Saxena,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
R.M. Vishwakarma for the appellant; Shri
Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Shri P.N. Tripathi for
respondent no.3 and the learned Standing
Counsel for the other respondents.

6. On behalf of the appellant, it has
been urged that the identity of the Junior
High School is intact and, therefore, the
appellant's appointment as Head Master
of the Junior High School was in
accordance with the provisions of U.P.
Recognized Basic (Junior High School)
(Recruitment
and
Condition
of
the
Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (herein
after referred to as the ''Rules 1978'). It
has further been contended that the
appointment of respondent no.3 was never
made in accordance with the said Rules
1978 and there is no valid approval and as
such the claim of the respondent no.3
deserves to be rejected. Shri Saxena has
further stated that the appellant is fully
qualified and possesses the requisite
qualification for the post of the Head
Master of the Junior High School. He has
further contended that the learned Single
Judge has erred by ordering prosecution
without there being any enquiry with
regard to the genuineness or otherwise of
the newspapers from the Information
Bureau and further the direction for
refund of salary from the appellant is
unsupported in law.

7. Replying to the aforesaid
submissions, Shri Khare has taken us to
the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge with the aid of the Full
Bench decision in the case of State of
U.P. & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Varanasi
& Ors., 1981 UPLBEC 336 and the
decision of the learned Single Judge in the
case of Dr. Smt. Sushila Gupta Vs.
Regional Joint Director of Education,
(2006) 1 ALJ 523 and has urged that the
2 All] Ajay Pratap Rai V. Distt. Basic Education Officer and others
447
entire claim of the appellant has to be
rejected in view of the findings recorded
by
the
learned
Single
Judge
and,
therefore, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.

8. The learned Standing Counsel has
also made his submissions and has invited
the attention of the Court to the various
definitions as contained in Act 1972, the
Rules 1978, the U.P. Junior High School
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other
Employees)
Act,
1978,
the
provisions of the Act 1921 and the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the
''Act 1982') and has urged that the
directions given by the learned Single
Judge in respect of the claim on the post
of the Head of the Institution do not
deserve any interference as no ground has
been made out either in law or in fact for
any further judicial intervention.

9. Having considered the rival
submissions, we find that the learned
Single Judge after having noticed the Full
Bench decision in the case of State of
U.P. & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in Sushila Gupta
(supra) has held that once a Junior High
School stands upgraded as a High School
or an Intermediate College, then in that
event the post of the Head of the
Institution has to be filled up in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act 1921 read with Act 1982. It
has been held that in such eventuality the
Junior High School looses its identity as
such and upon upgradation of the
institution,
there
cannot
be
any
appointment of a Head Master in a Junior
High School under Rules 1978. For this,
the learned Single Judge has placed
reliance upon the decisions referred to
therein and has also indicated the ratio of
the decision in Sushila Gupta's case to be
fully applicable to the facts of the present
controversy.

10. The issue raised by the
appellant, therefore, in respect of the
status of the institution as still to be that
of a Junior High School for the purposes
of appointment on the post of Head of the
Institution, has to be rejected for the
reasons given by the learned Single Judge
with which we find ourselves to be in full
agreement with. The word "upgradation"
in
its
normal
connotation
means
improvement; enhancement of status;
more efficient. The word "grade" is
derived from the latin word ''gradus'
which means degree, step. In Hari Nandan
Sharan Bhatnagar Vs. S.N. Dixit & Anr.
AIR 1970 SC 40; and A.K. Subraman Vs.
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 483,
the Apex Court held ''grade' means rank,
position in a scale, a class or position in a
class according to the value. It means a
degree in the scale of rank, dignity,
proficiency etc. (Section 15 of Code of
Civil
Procedure,
1908).
The
word
''upgradation'
therefore
means
improvement in degree, raising of status,
rank, quality or in value. It is an
improvement in proficiency and reflects a
rising gradient. The institution was
admittedly a Junior High School and was
raised to the status of a High School in
1993 and to that of Intermediate College
in the year 1999. It is undisputed that
upon being upgraded as a High School,
the institution has been recognized as
such under the provisions of Act 1921.
This
undisputed
position,
therefore,
clearly establishes that the institution
ceases to be a Junior High School and for
the purposes of appointment of Head of
the Institution, the appointment can only
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
be made by resorting to the provisions as
indicated in the judgment rendered in
Sushila
Gupta's
case
(supra).
The
observations made by the Full Bench in
the case of State of U.P. Vs. District
Judge Varanasi (supra), which have been
quoted in detail by the learned Single
Judge are worth reiterating to the effect
that Basic School or a Junior High School
is different from a High School or an
Intermediate
College
as
the
same
institution cannot be called Basic School
or a Junior High School as well as a High
School or an Intermediate College. The
Full Bench above referred to held as
under:-

"On a Basic School or a Junior High
School being upgraded as a High School
or Intermediate College, the identity of
the institution known as Basic School or a
Junior High School is lost and it ceases to
exist as a legal entity and in its place
another institution with a legal entity
comes into being. One cannot be equated
with the other."

11. The aforesaid observations of
the Full Bench as explained in the
judgment
of
Sushila
Gupta's
case,
therefore, leave no room for doubt that the
selection and appointment on the post of
Head of the Institution which has been
recognized as a High School and
Intermediate College cannot be made
under the provisions which are applicable
to a Junior High School. In Sushila Gupta
(supra),
the
learned
Single
Judge
considered all the Amendment made in
the Statute and held that in spite of so
many
amendments
to
the
statutory
provisions, the proposition of law laid
down by the above referred to Full Bench
remained the same. Mr. Saxena has not
brought to our notice any provision which
have altered the legal position.

12. From the aforesaid discussions,
it is evident that status of an institution
after
being
upgraded
looses
its
significance and the lower section of the
school
after
upgradation
completely
merges into the upgraded institution.
Interpreting the provisions otherwise
would lead to complete absurdity and
create a chaotic situation even for
governance of the different parts of the
same institution. An institution cannot
have a multiple Code for its governance.
There
is
no
provision
permitting
continued applicability of the laws in
relation to a Junior High School even
after its upgradation.

13. The contention of Shri Saxena,
therefore, to the effect that institution did
not loose its identity as a Junior High
School has to be necessarily rejected.
Accordingly, we are of the considered
opinion that neither the selection nor
appointment of the appellant nor the
appointment of the respondent no.3 was
in order and, therefore, the learned Single
Judge was perfectly justified in holding
that no selection or appointment has been
held in accordance with law to the post of
Head of the Institution.

14. The second submission made by
Shri Saxena that the finding has been
recorded by the learned Single Judge that
the
appellant
did
not
possess
the
eligibility as he did not have experience
of three years as required under the law
for being appointed as a Head Master in
the Junior High School is liable to be set
aside only on the ground that such an
issue had been raised by the petitionerrespondent while filing the rejoinder
2 All] Ajay Pratap Rai V. Distt. Basic Education Officer and others
449
affidavit. Had it been the ground in the
writ petition, the appellant could have
taken the pleadings to rebut the same. The
learned Single Judge has dealt with the
issue as under:-

"There is requirement of three years
experience as teacher for being appointed
as Headmaster of Junior High School
under Rule 4(2) (c) of 1978 Rules. Large
Scale manipulation appears to have been
made. Ajai Pratap Rai in his affidavit
dated 30.12.2003, has mentioned that he
has worked as Assistant Teacher at
Mahantha Ram Asrey Das Madhyamik
Vidyalaya Madhuban Nagar, Laparey,
Jaunpur since 01.07.1999 to June 2002
and said fact finds support from the
certificate issued by the Principal of the
college on 18.01.2003 and also from the
attendance register of July 1999 to June
2002.
Certificate
dated
18.01.2003,
certifying functioning of Sri Ajai Kumar
Rai has been given by Manager Ram
Daur Yadav. Sri Ram Daur Yadav,
pursuant to letter written by petitioner has
categorically informed that Sri Ajai
Pratap Rai has never functioned in the
institution and has never been appointed
in the institution. Notarial Affidavit has
also been given, by Sri Ram Daur Yadav,
reiterating same statement of fact and
further documents submitted in this
regard be treated as forged. These
documents have been filed as Annexure
RA-2 and 3 to rejoinder affidavit filed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of
2006, copy of which has been served on
Sri R.M. Vishwakarma, Advocate on
04.05.2006 and qua which no dispute has
been raised. In attendance register which
has been appended at various places, Sri
Ajai Pratap Rai who claims himself to be
Assistant Teacher has appended his
signature below Class IV employee. In
the data list (Annexure RA-I and RA-II of
rejoinder affidavit dated 11.01.2004)
maintained
at
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad, Regional Office Varanasi, qua
teachers of institution name of Sri Ajai
Pratap Rai is conspicuously missing. All
these circumstances mentioned above,
prima facie speaks for itself, and until and
unless there is nexus in between Manager,
candidate
and
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, such appointment is
not at all feasible."

15. Admittedly, in this case such a
plea had been taken by filing a rejoinder
affidavit and annexing the affidavit of the
Manager of the institution where the
appellant alleged to have served from
01.07.1999 to June 2002. The copy of the
rejoinder affidavit had been served upon
the learned counsel for the appellant on
4th May, 2006 though the matter was
decided on 09.01.2007. Thus, there was a
sufficient time of eight months for the
appellant to file reply to the rejoinder
affidavit rebutting the averments made in
the rejoinder affidavit. The plea taken by
Shri Saxena is preposterous as there was a
notice of new facts to the appellant and
sufficient time for rebuttal of the same but
he, for the reasons best known to him, did
not avail the opportunity to controvert the
same. In Sri-La Sri Subramania Desika
Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi Vs. State
of Madras & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1578,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
similar issue and held that such a plea is
permissible provided the defendant does
not have a notice of new facts taken in the
replication or did not have sufficient time
to rebut the same. In the instant case, no
attempt had ever been made by the
appellant to rebut the said factual
averments taken in the rejoinder affidavit
nor any attempt has been made in appeal
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
to show that the factual averments made
in the rejoinder affidavit could not be
factually correct. In view of the above, the
learned Single Judge was justified in
drawing adverse inference against the
appellant. Thus, the aforesaid finding
does not warrant any interference in
appeal.

16. The contention with regard to
the direction of the learned Single Judge
in respect of lodging a First Information
Report also does not deserve to be
interfered with as the learned Single
Judge having recorded his finding in
respect of the manipulations in the
publication
in
the
newspaper,
has
concluded that the same requires to be
investigated by an investigating agency.
We do not find any error in the same as,
prima facie, there was ample material
before the learned Single Judge to have
arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. We
have ourselves also perused the two
copies of the Hindi Daily "Dainik
Manyavar"
alleged
to
have
been
published on Monday, the sixth of
January, 2003. On page two of the said
newspaper there is a clear difference as
the same space in one copy carries a news
item of arrest of two persons whereas the
other copy contains the advertisement
under scrutiny. The same therefore leaves
no room for a genuine doubt that fraud
has been apparently practiced. Both
copies at page four disclose the name of
the Editor Sri Om Prakash Jaiswal and
recite the name and address of Mamta
Printers, Khwajgi Tola, Jaunpur as
Publishers. The same further discloses the
name of the printing press as Bharatdoot
Press,
6
Rampuri,
Varanasi.
The
telephonic and E-mail address are also
indicated
therein.
The
investigating
agency shall also take notice of the above
while initiating proceedings and copies of
the newspapers shall be made available
and obtained for the said purpose as the
involvement
of
the
publishing
and
printing agency in this matter cannot be
ruled
out.
The
investigation
shall
forthwith be set into motion as per the
directions of the learned Single Judge.

17. So far as the issue of refund of
the salary received by the appellant is
concerned, Mr. Saxena, learned Senior
Counsel has vehemently submitted that
the appellant had been working on the
post of Head Master and, therefore, the
order of refund of the salary received by
the appellant could not have been passed.
The learned Single Judge has dealt with
the issue in detail observing as under:-

"The fact of the matter is that
appointment letter had been issued in his
favour, signature had also been attested,
but he never functioned in the institution,
and this is fortified from the circumstance
that Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma on
26.05.2005 asked Sri Krishna Dixit to
hand over the charge to Sri Ajai Pratap
Rai and Sri Krishna Dixit then apprised
the Manager of interim order of this
Court. There is voluminous documents on
record to suggest that it was Sri Dixit who
had functioned as Principal, at all point of
time and not Sri Ajai Pratap Rai, filed
along with rejoinder affidavit, copy of
which has been served on Sri R.M.
Vishwakarma, Advocate on 04.09.2003.
On 20.06.2003, Additional Director of
Education,
Basic
gave
categorical
direction for not ensuring salary to Sri
Ajai Pratap Rai, but ignoring the same it
appears salary has been ensured to Sri
Ajai Pratap Rai."
2 All] Ram Rama Pal V. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and others
451
18. In the aforesaid factual matrix,
as the finding of fact has been recorded by
the learned Single Judge that the appellant
had not worked and the said finding
seems to be correct otherwise there was
no occasion for the Manager of the
institution to ask Mr. Sri Krishna Dixit on
26.05.2005 to hand over the charge to the
appellant and there was no need to pass an
order by the Additional Director of
Education on 20.06.2003 for ensuring that
the appellant does not get the salary. The
salary has been paid to him definitely in
violation thereof.

19. Recovery of the salary received
by the appellant at such a belated stage is
admittedly very harsh and the Court must
be alive of the existing circumstances that
such a refund may cause great hardship to
him but in view of the fact that we have
already reached the conclusion that he
was not even eligible to make an
application for want of experience and
there was no occasion for making the
appointment
of
Head
Master
after
upgradation of the Junior High School to
High
School
and
subsequently
Intermediate, the entire proceedings had
been nothing but fraud upon the Statute.
In such circumstances, recovery of the
salary paid to him cannot be held to be
unjustified.

20. In sum and substance, we are of
the view that after upgradation of an
institution from Junior High School to
High School and then to Intermediate, the
lower section of the institution, i.e. Junior
High School looses its existence and
merges into the higher section and in that
eventuality, the question of making the
appointment of Head Master for the
Junior High School, a Principal for the
High School and another Principal to run
the Intermediate classes would lead to
complete chaotic situation and absurdity.
Thus, the appointment on the post of
Head Master could not be made. The
appellant did not possess the eligibility,
i.e. experience as required under the law
in making an application to the said post
and had illegally been appointed. Further,
the
serious
illegality/irregularity
in
advertising the vacancy existed and the
possibility of committing fraud cannot be
ruled out. As the appointment of the
appellant had been made in total violation
of law and without possessing the
eligibility, the recovery of salary received
by him in contravention of the order
passed by the Statutory Authority does
not warrant any interference.

21. In view of the above, the appeal
is
misconceived
and
accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24458 of 1989

Ram Rama Pal

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri M.B. Saxena
Dr. Y.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tribeni Prasad
S.C.