# Rajendra Prasad Kureel & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1027
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5962 of 2017
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-kureel-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48392
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Pay Upgradation -
Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.)- The
sole question that arise for consideration is, as
to whether the services of the petitioners'
appointment/recruited
by
way
of
deputation would count towards A.C.P. or
from the date of merger with the third
respondent. (Para 14)

The State Government on 04.05.2010,
issued
a
GO
addressed
to
all
the
Secretaries/Heads of the department to
implement the A.C.P. scheme pursuant to
the
recommendations
of
the
Pay
Committee (2008). The GO, inter alia,
provides that all government servants appointed
by way of direct recruitment on any post, from
the
date
of
their
first
regular/confirmed
appointment, are entitled to pay upgradation on
completing satisfactory continuous service of 10
years, 18 years and 26 years respectively. In
other words the first A.C.P. would be granted on
completion of 10 years of satisfactory service
and the subsequent upgradation would be on
completion of 16/26 years of satisfactory
service, as the case may be. The GO further
provides that in case a government servant in
between earns a promotion, then he shall not
be entitled to the subsequent upgradation but
would be entitled to A.C.P. on completing that
many years of service, from the date of
promotion. (Para 15)

Attention of the Court has been drawn to
the subsequent GO issued on 05.11.2014
bringing slight modification to the A.C.P.
Scheme.
There
is
no
modification
or
amendment in the scheme, save the entitlement
of A.C.P., has been made applicable on
completing satisfactory services i.e. 08 years, 16
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
years and 24 years as against 10, 18 and 26
years. (Para 18)

Having regard to the A.C.P. Scheme as
stipulated in the GOs dated 04.05.2010
and 05.11.2014, there is no ambiguity
or any difficulty in holding that the
petitioners
are
entitled
of
A.C.P.
computing the period of service from
the date of recruitment on deputation.
In
the
backdrop
of
admitted
facts,
petitioners came to be recruited/appointed
on deputation with the third respondent in
the year 1998. On completing 10 years of
service i.e. in 2008, petitioners were entitled
to the second A.C.P. It is clarified that since
the petitioners came to be appointed on the
higher pay-scale on deputation they were
not entitled to the first A.C.P. Thereafter,
petitioners were entitled to earn the third
A.C.P. on completing 26 years of service in

## Text

5 All. Rajendra Prasad Kureel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027
of medicine practised by Medical Officers.
Admittedly,
the
Medical
Officers,
irrespective of the stream of medicine
(Allopathy or conventional) treat the
patients which is the core underlying
similarity. The comparison with regard to
qualification, course of study/syllabus,
nature of duty, responsibility etc. as is
being pressed by the State Government to
carve out a class of Medical Officers i.e.
PHMS being superior to other Medical
Officers is misconceived and unfounded
insofar it relates to conferment of SACP.
The administrative policy is invariably
discriminatory in keeping the Medical
Officers (Ayurvedic) and other streams out
of the scheme having regard to the concept
of ACP as discussed earlier.

32. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

33. The impugned order dated
28.02.2017, passed by the first respondent,
Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, is set aside and
quashed. It is provided that the Special
ACP Scheme (SACP) implemented vide
Government Order dated 14 November
2014, shall be applicable to the Medical
Officers of other streams.

34. No cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1027
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 5962 of 2017
along with
Writ A No. 11470 of 2016
Rajendra Prasad Kureel & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohammad Naseerullah, D.P. Tyagi, I.M.
Pandey Ist, Param Shanker

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Pay Upgradation -
Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.)- The
sole question that arise for consideration is, as
to whether the services of the petitioners'
appointment/recruited
by
way
of
deputation would count towards A.C.P. or
from the date of merger with the third
respondent. (Para 14)

The State Government on 04.05.2010,
issued
a
GO
addressed
to
all
the
Secretaries/Heads of the department to
implement the A.C.P. scheme pursuant to
the
recommendations
of
the
Pay
Committee (2008). The GO, inter alia,
provides that all government servants appointed
by way of direct recruitment on any post, from
the
date
of
their
first
regular/confirmed
appointment, are entitled to pay upgradation on
completing satisfactory continuous service of 10
years, 18 years and 26 years respectively. In
other words the first A.C.P. would be granted on
completion of 10 years of satisfactory service
and the subsequent upgradation would be on
completion of 16/26 years of satisfactory
service, as the case may be. The GO further
provides that in case a government servant in
between earns a promotion, then he shall not
be entitled to the subsequent upgradation but
would be entitled to A.C.P. on completing that
many years of service, from the date of
promotion. (Para 15)

Attention of the Court has been drawn to
the subsequent GO issued on 05.11.2014
bringing slight modification to the A.C.P.
Scheme.
There
is
no
modification
or
amendment in the scheme, save the entitlement
of A.C.P., has been made applicable on
completing satisfactory services i.e. 08 years, 16
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
years and 24 years as against 10, 18 and 26
years. (Para 18)

Having regard to the A.C.P. Scheme as
stipulated in the GOs dated 04.05.2010
and 05.11.2014, there is no ambiguity
or any difficulty in holding that the
petitioners
are
entitled
of
A.C.P.
computing the period of service from
the date of recruitment on deputation.
In
the
backdrop
of
admitted
facts,
petitioners came to be recruited/appointed
on deputation with the third respondent in
the year 1998. On completing 10 years of
service i.e. in 2008, petitioners were entitled
to the second A.C.P. It is clarified that since
the petitioners came to be appointed on the
higher pay-scale on deputation they were
not entitled to the first A.C.P. Thereafter,
petitioners were entitled to earn the third
A.C.P. on completing 26 years of service in
2016. The petitioners were granted A.C.P. by
the third respondent vide orders dated
25.08.2010 and 07.04.2015 from their date
of
appointment
on
deputation
in
the
department. The third respondent, however,
on the directions of the State Government
has
recalled/modified
the
orders
and
consequential orders have been issued to
recover the excess amount paid to the
petitioners. The impugned order takes the
date of merger (2012) for computing the
period
of service for
A.C.P.
which is
erroneous. (Para 19)

Hon'ble High Court having regard to the
conditions stipulated in the GO dated
04.05.2010 held that the petitioners are
entitled to second and third A.C.P. on
computing their services from the date of
their respective recruitment on deputation
since 1998 and not from the date of their
merger with the respondent department
in 2006. In view thereof, the impugned order
dated
01.10.2015,
passed
by
the
third
respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, U.P.
Lucknow, in compliance of the order dated
04.08.2015, issued by the State Government
and all consequential orders directing recovery
from the petitioners, is unsustainable and liable
to the quashed. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Precedent followed:

1. Ram Murti Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2006) 3
UPLBEC 2415 (Para 11)

2. St. of Pun. Vs Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334
(Para 11)

3. Thomas Daniel Vs St. of Kerala, Civil Appeal
No. 7115 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2022 (Para
11)

Present petition challenges the order
dated 01.10.2015, passed by Director,
Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.M. Pandey and Sri
Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsels for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for the State-respondents.

2. Both the writ petitions are being
heard and decided together on the consent
of the learned counsels of the respective
parties.

3. The facts of writ petition No.5962
of 2017 is being referred to for the sake of
convenience.

4. The petitioners, by the instant writ
petition have raised challenge to the order
dated 01 October, 2015, passed by the third
respondent- Director, Viklang Jan Vikas,
Lucknow, whereby, first A.C.P. granted to
the petitioners on 01 December, 2008,
counting their services w.e.f. 1998, has
been
recalled/modified
computing
the
period for grant of first A.C.P., from the
date of their merger i.e. 26 December, 2006
with the respondent department. As per the
impugned order, petitioners are entitled to
the first A.C.P. on 26 December, 2016, and
thereafter second and third A.C.P. Pursuant
to the impugned order, consequential orders
have been passed, whereby, recovery of the
5 All. Rajendra Prasad Kureel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029
excess amount paid, has been ordered to be
recovered. It is informed that the recovery
from the petitioners had been stayed by this
Court.

5. The facts inter-se parties is not in
dispute.

6. The first petitioner came to be
appointed on the post of Clerk (pay-scale
Rs.340-550/-) in Zila Parishad Kanpur,
under the Panchayati Raj Department of
Uttar Pradesh. The second and third
petitioners were appointed on the post of
Junior Clerk in same pay-scale with the
U.P. Tribal
Development,
Directorate,
Lucknow, on 02 December, 1986 and 31
March, 1989 respectively. The fourth
petitioner was appointed Junior Clerk on 03
August, 1990, in the pay-scale Rs.340550/- (Revised pay-scale Rs.950-1500).

7. Petitioners, thereafter, came to be
appointed on deputation on the post of
Senior Clerk with the third respondent-
Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow; on
different dates between 31 January, 1998 to
13 November, 1998, in higher pay-scale at
Rs.1200-2040/-.
The
pay-scale,
subsequently, came to be revised w.e.f. 01
January, 1996 at Rs. 4000-6000/-. This fact
has been admitted by the State-respondents
in their counter affidavit dated 16 March,
2018. Thereafter, vide order dated 26
December, 2006, passed by the third
respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas,
Lucknow, services of the petitioners came
to be merged on their respective post with
the third respondent, consequently, the lien
of their parent department came to be
terminated. The past services rendered by
the petitioner in the parent department was
to be counted towards qualifying service
for pensionary benefits duly recorded in the
order of merger. Thereafter, services of the
petitioners came to be confirmed on 03
May, 2007, on the post of Senior Clerk in
the same pay-scale Rs.4000-6000/-.

8. The Government Order dated 04
May, 2010, was issued by the government
introducing Assured Career Progression
(A.C.P.) Scheme to provide financial
upgradation on three stages i.e. at 10 years,
18 years and 26 years from the date of
initial appointment to tide over stagnation
on the post.

9. The petitioners, herein, were
granted first A.C.P. w.e.f. 01 December,
2008, counting ten years from the date of
appointment,
vide
order
dated
27
November,
2014.
Thereafter,
the
Government
issued
the
impugned
order/direction dated 04.08.2015, addressed
to the third respondent to withdraw the
benefit of A.C.P. allowed to certain officers
named therein, directing that all such
officers and similarly placed other officers
are entitled to A.C.P. from the date of their
merger with the department i.e. from the
year 2006, and not from the date of their
appointment on deputation, accordingly, the
third respondent directed that the excess
amount paid to the petitioners from 1998
towards A.C.P., be recovered. The order
dated 04 August, 2015, insofar as, it relates
to the petitioners is also under challenge.

10. It is also relevant to point out that
in consequence second A.C.P. granted by
order dated 06 April, 2017 to the petitioners
on completion of 16 years' of satisfactory
service, was also recalled/modified. The
facts, briefly stated herein above, is not
being disputed by the State-respondents.

11. In this backdrop, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have committed an error in
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passing the impugned order on misreading
of the Government Order dated 04 May,
2010, wherein, it has been categorically,
provided that the services rendered by the
government servants on deputation would
count towards the entitlement of A.C.P. It is
further submitted that recovery, that has
been sought to be made is inequitable
having regard to the fact that petitioners
had
since
retired
on
the
date
of
superannuation.
Further,
there
is
no
allegation of fraud or misrepresentation
against the petitioners in obtaining the
orders granting them A.C.P. Reliance has
been placed on the decision rendered in
Ram Murti Singh Versus State of U.P.
[(2006) 3 UPLBEC 2415], State of
Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC
334] and recently, the Supreme Court in
Thomas Daniel Versus State of Kerala,
(Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010) decided
on 2 May 2022, observed and held as
follows:

"Such relief, restraining recovery
of excess payment, is granted by courts not
because of any right in the employees, but
in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion
to relieve the employees from the hardship
that will be caused if recovery is
implemented.
A
government
servant,
particularly one in the lower rungs of
service would spend whatever emoluments
he receives for the upkeep of his family. If
he receives an excess payment for a long
period, he would spend it, genuinely
believing that he is entitled to it. As any
subsequent action to recover the excess
payment will cause undue hardship to him,
relief is granted in that behalf. But where
the employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what
was due or wrongly paid, or where the error
is detected or corrected within a short time
of wrong payment, courts will not grant
relief against recovery. The matter being in
the realm of judicial discretion, courts may
on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case refuse to grant such relief
against recovery."

12. In rebuttal, learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents fairly
submits that the Government Order dated 04
May, 2010, would apply upon the petitioners
in computing the service period for entitlement
of A.C.P.. He further submits that it has not
being disputed in the counter affidavit that the
petitioners are government servants and were
working in different departments,
they
subsequently came to be appointed on
deputation with the third respondent- Director,
Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow, on a higher payscale and since then they have continued on
the same post subsequently came to be merged
with the department. He further submits that
the services rendered by the petitioners on the
date of recruitment by way of deputation,
would not count towards A.C.P; and they have
been rightly granted A.C.P. from the date of
merger (2006) with the third respondent, after
modifying the earlier order issued erroneously.

13. In other words, he submits that the
State-respondents are justified in directing
recovery after modification/cancellation of the
earlier order, which was issued erroneously in
teeth of Government Order dated 04 May,
2010.

14. On having considered the rival
submissions of the parties, the sole question
that arise for consideration is, as to whether the
services of the petitioners' appointment /
recruited by way of deputation would count
towards A.C.P. or from the date of merger with
the third respondent.

15. The State Government on 04 May,
2010,
issued
a
Government
Order
5 All. Rajendra Prasad Kureel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
addressed to all the Secretaries/Heads of
the department to implement the A.C.P.
scheme pursuant to the recommendations
of the Pay Committee (2008). The
Government Order, inter alia, provides that
all government servants appointed by way
of direct recruitment on any post, from the
date
of
their
first
regular/confirmed
appointment,
are
entitled
to
pay
upgradation on completing satisfactory
continuous service of 10 years, 18 years
and 26 years respectively. In other words
the first A.C.P. would be granted on
completion of 10 years of satisfactory
service and the subsequent upgradation
would be on completion of 16/26 years of
satisfactory service, as the case may be.
The Government Order further provides
that in case a government servant in
between earns a promotion, then he shall
not
be
entitled
to
the
subsequent
upgradation but would be entitled to A.C.P.
on completing that many years of service,
from the date of promotion. Para-2(i) and
(v) reads thus:

Para-2 "(i) ,0lh0ikh0 ds vUrZxr
lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh in ij izFke fu;fer fu;qfDr
dh frfFk ls 10 o"kZ] 18 o"kZ o 26 o"kZ dh vuojr
larks"ktud lsok ds vk/kkj ij] rhu foRrh;
LrjksUu;u fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu vuqeU; fd;s
tk;saxsa %&

(d) izFke foRrh; LrjksUu;u lh/kh HkrhZ
ds in ds osrueku@ lkn`'; xzsM osru esa 10 o"kZ dh
fu;fer lsok fujUrj lUrks"ktud :i ls iw.kZ dj ysus
ij ns; gksxkA

ijUrq]

fdlh in dk osrueku@xzsM osru fdlh le;
fcUnq ij mPphd`r dh fLFkfr esa foRrh; LrjksUu;u dh
vuqeU;rk gsrq lsokof/k dh x.kuk esa iwoZ osrueku@xzsM
osru rFkk mPphd`r osrueku@xzsM osru esa dh x;h
lsokvksa dks tksM+dj mPphd`r xzsM osru ls vxyk xzsM
osru vuqeU; gksxkA

([k) izFke foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds :i esa vuqeU;
xzsM osru esa 08 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok iw.kZ
dj ysus ij f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;ku ns; gksxkA blh
izdkj f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds :i esa vuqeU; xzsM
osru esa 08 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok iw.kZ dj
ysus ij r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ns; gksxkA

ijUrq]

;fn lEcaf/kr dkfeZd dks izksUufr] izFke
foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds iwoZ vFkok mlds i'pkr~ izkIr
gks tkrh gS rks izksUufr dh frfFk ls 08 o"kZ dh lsok
iw.kZ dj ysus ij gh izksUufr ds in ij vuqeU; xzsM
osru ls vxyk xzsM osru f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds
:i esa vuqeU; gksxkA lEcfU/kr in ij jgrs gq,
mDrkuqlkj f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u vuqeU; gksus dh
frfFk ls 08 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus vFkok dqy 26 o"kZ
dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk] tks Hkh igys gks] ls r`rh;
foRrh; LrjksUu;u dk ykHk vuqeU; gksxkA

(v) ,0lh0ih0 dh O;oLFkk ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~
lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh in ij izFke fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~
laoxZ esa izFke inksUufr gksus ds mijkUr dsoy f}rh;
,oa r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u rFkk f}rh; inksUufr
izkIr gksus ds mijkUr r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u dk
ykHk gh ns; jg tk;sxkA rhljh inksUufr izkIr gksus dh
frfFk ds iz'pkr~ fdlh Hkh n'kk esa foRrh; LrjksUu;u
dk ykHk vuqeU; u gksxkA bl lUnHkZ esa ;g Hkh
mYys[kuh; gS fd fnukad 01 tuojh] 2006 ls ykxw
iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa ,d gh laoxZ esa ;fn leku
xzsM osru okys in ij inksUufr gqbZ gS] rks mls] Hkh
foRrh; LrjksUu;u dh vuqeU;rk gsrq inksUufr ekuk
tk;sxkA"

16. The Government Order further
provides that the government servant who
have worked in any other government
department on the same grade-pay, their
services shall be considered for A.C.P.. The
government servant, who came to be
transferred/recruited on deputation would
also be considered for A.C.P.. Para2(vi)(vii) and (viii) is extracted:

"(vi) izns'k ds vU; jktdh; foHkkxksa
esa leku xzsM osru esa dh x;h fu;fer lsok dks
foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds fy, x.kuk esa fy;k tk;sxk]
ijUrq ,sls ekeyksa esa ,0lh0ih dh O;oLFkk ds
vUrZxr ns; fdlh ykHk gsrq u;s foHkkx ds in ij
ifjoh{kk
vof/k
(probation
period)
larks"ktud :i ls iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr gh
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fopkj fd;k tk;sxk ,oa lEcfU/kr ykHk ns; frfFk
ls gh vuqeU; djk;k tk;sxkA

(vii) ,0lh0ih dh O;oLFkk ds vUrZxr
foRrh; LrjksUU;u gsrq fu;fer lUrks"ktud lsok
dh x.kuk esa izfrfu;qfDr@okg~; lsok] v/;;u
vodk'k rFkk l{ke Lrj ls Lohd`r lHkh izdkj ds
vodk'k dh vof/k dks lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA

(viii)
dsanz
ljdkj@LFkkuh;
fudk;@Lo'kklh laLFkk@lkoZtfud midze ,oa
fuxe esa dh x;h iwoZ lsok dks foRrh; LrjksUu;u
ds fy, x.kuk esa ugh fy;k tk;sxkA"

17.
 Applying
the
mandate
of
Government Order to the admitted facts, in
the instant petition, it is not being disputed
by the respondents that all the petitioners,
herein, were government servants working
in various departments of the State
Government, they came to be appointed on
deputation in 1998 on a higher payscale/grade-pay. In the circumstances, the
petitioners are not entitled to the first
A.C.P., however, since the petitioners
continued with the third respondent on the
same post without earning any subsequent
promotion, were entitled to second and
third A.C.P. counting the services rendered
on
deputation
with
the
respondent
department as provided under Para-2(vi)
and (vii) of the Government Order.

18. Attention of the Court has been
drawn to the subsequent Government Order
issued on 5 November 2014 bringing slight
modification to the A.C.P. Scheme. Para-9
and 11 of the said Government Order is
pari materia with the conditions stipulated
in the Government Order dated 4 May 2010
i.e.
the
services
rendered
by
the
government
servant
in
any
earlier
establishment/department
of
the
government, and/or the services rendered
upon being appointed on deputation would
be counted towards A.C.P.. In other words,
there is no modification or amendment in
the scheme, save the entitlement of A.C.P.,
has been made applicable on completing
satisfactory services i.e. 08 years, 16 years
and 24 years as against 10, 18 and 26 years.

19. Having regard to the A.C.P.
Scheme as stipulated in the Government
Orders dated 4 May 2010 and 5 November
2014, there is no ambiguity or any
difficulty in holding that the petitioners are
entitled of A.C.P. computing the period of
service from the date of recruitment on
deputation. In the backdrop of admitted
facts,
petitioners
came
to
be
recruited/appointed on deputation with the
third respondent in the year 1998. On
completing 10 years of service i.e. in 2008,
petitioners were entitled to the second
A.C.P. It is clarified that since the
petitioners came to be appointed on the
higher pay-scale on deputation they were
not entitled to the first A.C.P. Thereafter,
petitioners were entitled to earn the third
A.C.P. on completing 26 years of service in
2016. The petitioners were granted A.C.P.
by the third respondent vide orders dated
25 August 2010 and 7 April 2015 from
their date of appointment on deputation in
the department. The third respondent,
however, on the directions of the State
Government has recalled/modified the
orders and consequential orders have been
issued to recover the excess amount paid to
the petitioners. The impugned order takes
the date of merger (2012) for computing
the period of service for A.C.P. which is
erroneous.

20. Having regard to the conditions
stipulated in the Government Order dated 4
May 2010, the petitioners are entitled to
second and third A.C.P. on computing their
services from the date of their respective
recruitment on deputation since 1998 and
not from the date of their merger with the
5 All. C/M Azimuddin Ashraf Islamia Inter College, Barabanki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1033
respondent department in 2006. In view
thereof, the impugned order dated 1
October
2015,
passed
by
the
third
respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas,
U.P. Lucknow, in compliance of the order
dated 04 August, 2015, issued by the State
Government and all consequential orders
directing recovery from the petitioners, is
unsustainable and liable to the quashed.

21. Order accordingly.

22. The writ petition, is accordingly,
allowed.

23. The State-respondents are directed
to compute the entitlement of second and
third A.C.P. from the date of appointment
of the petitioners on deputation (1998) with
all consequential benefits, including retiral
dues. The petitioners are entitled to arrears,
if any. It is expected that the Staterespondents shall complete the exercise
within eight weeks from the date of filing
of certified copy of this order, failing
which, petitioners shall be entitled to
simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from due date till the date of payment on
the
amount
due
to
the
respective
petitioners.

24. No cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1033
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Writ A No. 3793 of 2018

C/M
Azimuddin
Ashraf
Islamia
Inter
College, Barabanki ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aftab Ahmad, Qazi Mohd. Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Education - Selection
and Appointment - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Sections 2(dd),
16FF(4) & 16FF(5) - It was not open
for the District Inspector of Schools to
reopen the issue after adjudication by
the
Joint
Director
of
Secondary
Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad
vide order dated 30.06.2017. All that
he was required to do was to verify the
educational testimonials and training
documents
for
the
purposes
of
payment of salary, instead he has
embarked
upon
an
unnecessary
exercise
pointing
out
certain
irregularities in the selection which
could not have been seen by him. The
order of the Joint Director is referable to
S.16 FF (5) of the Act of 1921 as also the
GO
dated
19.12.1997,
contained
as
Annexure No. 18 to the petition. Counter
affidavit is silent as to how the Joint
Director of Secondary Education, Faizabad
Region,
Faizabad
did
not
have
the
jurisdiction in the matter in view of the GO
dated 19.12.1997, veracity of which has not
been challenged. (Para 10)

Selected candidates are already working
and being paid salary in pursuance to the
interim order passed by this Court dated
07.02.2018. The educational testimonials
and training documents have been verified
by the District Inspector of Schools before
paying the salary in compliance of the
interim order of this Court. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges the order
dated 19.12.2017, passed by District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Barabanki,
holding the selection and appointment