# Amar Nath Chaubey v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 850
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25583 of 2013
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-nath-chaubey-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42629
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
opinion that this writ petition deserves to be
allowed.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed. The order dated 12.3.2013
passed by the respondent no. 4 (Examination
Controller, Public Service Commission UP,
Allahabad) is quashed. The respondents are
directed to grant appointment to the
petitioner on the post on which he has been
selected by the Commission in pursuance of
the interview held on 28.8.2012, the result of
which was published by the Commission on
10.10.2012.

14. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25583 of 2013

Amar Nath Chaubey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Niraj Tiwari, Sri Anirudh Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Payment
of salary-ad hoc principal grade-rejected
by
D.I.O.S.-on
ground
before
appointment
no
requisition
sendprovision of Section 18 not attractedheld-once
requisition
send-selected
candidate
not
recommended-death
before joining-resulted continuance of
petitioner-as ad-hoc Principal entitled
for salary as principal.

Held: Para-8
Thus,
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
circumstances, the impugned order dated
02.02.2013, proceeds on an erroneous
assumption of fact to apply the law
wrongly and cannot be sustained. If the
petitioner was working as an ad-hoc
Principal and his signatures were attested
then he would be entitled for payment of
salary in the Principal's grade in view of
the law as declared by this Court in the
case of Narbedeshwar Misra Vs. District
Inspector of Schools [1982 UPLBEC 171].

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. The petitioner is claiming
payment of salary as Adhoc Principal in
the Principal's Grade from 01.07.2010 to
30.06.2011.

3. The vacancy of Principal in the
institution had come into existence and
had been duly notified to the U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board. The Board selected one Dr.
Chandresh Tiwari and placed him in the
institution, but before Sri Chandresh
Tiwari could join in the institution, he
died. The petitioner was functioning as
adhoc principal of the institution. There is
no dispute about this fact and the
attestation
of
his
signatures
on
05.08.2010.

4. Aggrieved by the non payment of
salary in Principal's Grade, the petitioner
came up before this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 64201 of 2012, which was
disposed of on 11th December 2012 with
a direction to the District Inspector of
Schools, Varanasi to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law. The
D.I.O.S. in turn has now passed the
impugned order dated 02.02.2013 and has
2 All] Amar Nath Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
851
rejected the claim of the petitioner on the
ground that the Management failed to
requisition the post after the death of Sri
Chandresh Tiwari and in the absence of
any such requisition, the provisions of
Section 18 of the 1982 Act are not
attracted for the purpose of payment of
salary to the petitioner.

5. The finding recorded is that since
there was no intimation of vacancy of the
post of Principal to the Board, the adhoc
Principal cannot get salary in the said
grade as no selection process commenced
for the purpose of posting a permanent
principal in the institution. The reason
appears to be that unless there is an
intimation for the process of selection to
commence with due intimation to the
Board, the provisions of Section 18 for
payment of salary are not attracted.

6. The reasoning given for attracting
Section 18 may be correct, but in the facts
of this case the reasoning appears to have
been incorrectly applied, inasmuch as in
the instant case the post had been duly
notified and the selection process by the
Board for filling up the post was under
taken against which Dr. Chandresh Tiwari
had been selected and placed for
appointment in the institution. It is
unfortunate that Dr. Chandresh Tiwari
died before he could join, as a result
whereof, the petitioner continued to work
as Adhoc Principal of the institution till
his retirement on 30.06.2011.

7. Thus, this is not a case of no
intimation at all. Subsequent information
after the death of Sri Chandresh Tiwari
will not be relevant for the present
purpose as the petitioner had been
appointed when the earlier vacancy had
arisen and the process of selection had
also been undertaken by the Board.

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
circumstances, the impugned order dated
02.02.2013, proceeds on an erroneous
assumption of fact to apply the law
wrongly and cannot be sustained. If the
petitioner was working as an ad-hoc
Principal and his signatures were attested
then he would be entitled for payment of
salary in the Principal's grade in view of
the law as declared by this Court in the
case
of
Narbedeshwar
Misra
Vs.
District Inspector of Schools [1982
UPLBEC 171].

9. The writ petition is allowed, the order
dated 02.02.2013 is set aside. The respondent
District Inspector of Schools is directed to
calculate the salary of the petitioner in the
Principal's Grade and release the same within
eight weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25871 of 2013

Alauddin

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Ojha, Sri K.K. Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri C.P. Mishra
Sri B.D. Pandey