# Subas Yadav v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 769
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46172 of 2003
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subas-yadav-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-42972
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 101-Appointment
of Asst. clerk-without prior approval-ab
intio
illegal-after
appointment-no
requirement of approval-DIOS rightly
refused to approve.

Held: Para-9
I do not find any error in the impugned
order passed by District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria. The appointment has
been made by the Principal of the
college,
appointing
the
petitioner
without prior approval, therefore the
appointment was ex-facie illegal being
contrary
to
Regulation
101
and,
therefore,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Deoria has rightly refused to
grant the approval. The decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Jagdish Singh, etc. Vs. State of U.P.
and others (Supra) is of no help to the
petitioner.

Case Law discussed:
2006(4) ADJ 162.

## Text

2 All] Subas Yadav Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
769
petitioner has now been retired. He can only
be reinstated notionally and entitled for other
post retiral benefits.

16. On the facts and circumstances, I
am of the view that on the principle of "No
work no pay", the petitioner is not entitled for
the salary for the period during which he has
not worked. However, the period of
termination be treated as the period of service
and the petitioner would be entitled for other
post retiral benefits from the date when he
attained the age of superannuation.

17. In the case of Baldev Singh Vs.
Union of India and others, reported in
2006 SCC (L&S), 35, Apex Court held
that where the service of the employee is
terminated on the ground that he was
convicted in criminal case and on his
acquittal his service is reinstated, the
employee is not entitled for salary for the
period during which he has worked on the
principle of "no work no pay".

18. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed in part. The impugned termination
order dated 19.10.1981 as well as order dated
02.09.2013 passed by the respondent no.3,
Regional Ayurvedic/Unani Chikitsadhikari
are set aside. However, the petitioner is not
entitled for back salary for the period when
he has not worked on the principle of "no
work no pay" and would entitled for the post
retiral benefits, namely, pension etc. from the
date
when
he
attained
the
age
of
superannuation.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46172 of 2003
Subas Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Singh, Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri
Ashwani Kr. Misra, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
Sri Rajes Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Tripathi

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 101-Appointment
of Asst. clerk-without prior approval-ab
intio
illegal-after
appointment-no
requirement of approval-DIOS rightly
refused to approve.

Held: Para-9
I do not find any error in the impugned
order passed by District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria. The appointment has
been made by the Principal of the
college,
appointing
the
petitioner
without prior approval, therefore the
appointment was ex-facie illegal being
contrary
to
Regulation
101
and,
therefore,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Deoria has rightly refused to
grant the approval. The decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Jagdish Singh, etc. Vs. State of U.P.
and others (Supra) is of no help to the
petitioner.

Case Law discussed:
2006(4) ADJ 162.

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

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Suman
Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 02.09.2003 passed by District
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inspector of Schools, Deoria, by which
the approval of the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk
made by the Principal of the college in
pursuance of the selection made by the
selection committee and appointed by the
Committee of Management, has been
declined.

3. Brief facts of the case are that it
appears that the petitioner has applied for
the post of Assistant Clerk in Sarojani
Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalay,
Barhaj, Deoria in pursuance of the
advertisement.
It
appears
that
the
petitioner has been selected by the
selection committee, constituted by the
committee of management vide resolution
dated 02.09.2001 and has been appointed
on the same day by the committee of
management and in pursuance thereof,
Principal
of
the
college
issued
appointment letter to the petitioner for the
post of Assistant Clerk. Subsequently, on
06.01.2001, the papers have been sent to
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria for
approval of the appointment of the
petitioner, which has been declined by the
impugned order on the ground that prior
approval
as
contemplated
under
Regulation 101 of Chapter III of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has not
been taken.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that no prior approval is
required before the selection under
Regulation 101 as held by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish
Singh, etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2006 (4) ADJ, 162 (All)(DB).
He further submitted that prior approval is
only required before the appointment,
therefore, the selection of the petitioner
can not be held illegal. While considering
the approval of the appointment of the
petitioner, the District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria should not have disputed
the selection of the petitioner.

5. Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that the
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has
only disapproved the appointment of the
petitioner, inasmuch as the appointment
has admittedly been made on 02.01.2001
and the relevant papers have been sent to
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on
06.01.2001 after the appointment and,
therefore,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Deoria has rightly refused to
grant the approval as it was contrary to
the Regulation 101. She further submitted
that the question for consideration before
the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
was approval of the appointment. There
was no question before the District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria whether the
selection was valid or not and, therefore,
there was no occasion to make any
comment in respect of the selection of the
petitioner. The impugned order is wholly
justified.

6. I have considered the rival
submissions and perused the record.

7. Regulation 101 reads as follows:

"Appointing Authority except with
prior approval of Inspector shall not fill
up any vacancy of non-teaching post of
any recognized aided institution:

Provided that filling of the vacancy
on the post of Jamadar may be granted
by the Inspector. "

8. Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Jagdish Singh, etc. Vs. State of
2 All] Dr. Fazal Ur.-Rehman Vs. Vice Chancellor, A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
771
U.P. and others (Supra) has held that
approval by the District Inspector of Schools
is not required before the selection and it is
only
required
before
making
the
appointment. In the present case, the
appointment of the petitioner has been made
on 02.01.2001 by the Principal of the college
after the resolution of the committee of
management dated 02.01.2001, without
taking prior approval from the District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria contrary to the
procedure provided under Regulation 101.
After making the appointment on 02.01.2001
the necessary papers have been sent on
06.01.2001 to the District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria for approval of the
appointment of the petitioner. The District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria was only
concerned with the appointment made on
02.01.2001. Since the approval has been
sought after making the appointment, the
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has
declined to grant the approval as the
appointment was contrary to the procedure
provided under Regulation 101.

9. I do not find any error in the
impugned
order
passed
by
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Deoria.
The
appointment has been made by the
Principal of the college, appointing the
petitioner without prior approval, therefore
the appointment was ex-facie illegal being
contrary to Regulation 101 and, therefore,
the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
has rightly refused to grant the approval.
The decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, etc. Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Supra) is of no
help to the petitioner.

10. In view of the above, the writ
petition
fails
and,
is
accordingly,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49764 of 2013

Dr. Fazal Ur.-Rehman ...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor, A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd Saeed Siddiqui, Sri Irshad Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sri M.F.
Ansari

Constitution of India, Art.-14, 16-Reduction
of minimum eligibility qualification-vacancy
of
Associate
Professor
advertised
on
06.02.2013-with requirement of 5 year
teaching experience after last date of
submission of application-on shortlistingpetitioner
not
called
for
interview-on
25.03.2012 the V.C. Exercising emergency
power u/s 19(3) of A.M.U. Act reduced
teaching experience with 4 years-which
resulted selected of Respondent 6 and
other desiring candidate-held-such action
violate of Art. 14 and 16 of the constitutiondepriving other similarly situated candidate
to participate in selection-entire selection
proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-12
We further find that if a candidate like
respondent no.6, who had less then five
years teaching experience and did not
satisfy the requirements mentioned in
the advertisement had to consider than
last
expected
from
Aligarh
Muslim
University
to
have
published
a
corrigendum or a fresh advertisement so
that all other candidates with four years
teaching experience like respondent no.6