An application for financial approval and promotion relating to a teacher's post was dismissed as frivolous. The court held that since promotion quota was not vacant and the prior proposal was rejected, the petition failed on merits.
None. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34687 of 2013
Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Pathak Respondent :- Dios And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Upadhyay,Upendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri R.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Sunder, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"A- to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1, The District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to send the proposal of the Committee of Management of the institution, which has been kept with him since a long, before the Divisional Committee for the purpose of taking the final decision with regard to the promotion of Sri Swami Nath Pathak to accord his financial approval to the post of the petitioner as a Assistant Teacher in the L T Grade in the institution so that the payment of the Salary may be paid to the petitioner month to month in accordance with law.
B- to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1, District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to accord the financial sanction to the post of the Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit, so that the monthly salary may be paid to the petitioner regularly together with the amount of the arrears which is due in accordance with law with effect the date of 16.12.1997.
C- to issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the circumstances of the instant case so that justice be done with the petitioner.
D- to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working since 16.12.1997 and, therefore, the promotion of Swami Nath Pathak be made to the post of Lecturer and on the post so falling vacant, the petitioner be adjusted as Assistant Lecturer in L.T. Grade and accordingly payment of salary be made to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is clearly frivolous writ petition. The relief No.A sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for promotion of Sri Swami Nath Pathak and not for himself. The writ petition of Sri Swami Nath Pathak being Writ Petition No.12590 of 2011 seeking relief for promotion to the post of Lecturer, has been dismissed today. The aforesaid Sri Swami Nath Pathak had earlier also filed a Writ Petition No.10040 of 1998 in which also he could not get any relief against the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi dated 10.12.1998, rejecting the proposal of the committee of management on the ground that no
post of Lecturer in promotion quota is vacant. The petitioner was illegally appointed by the Committee of Management, inasmuch as, there was no vacant post of assistant teacher. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.1 has not granted financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
Since, Writ Petition No.12590 of 2011 filed by Swami Nath Pathak has been dismissed today, therefore, the relief No.(A) as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
So far as the relief No.(B) is concerned, I do not find any good reason to grant the said relief for simple reason that the respondent no.2 has shown the appointment of the petitioner in expectation of vacancy of the post on promotion to the aforesaid Sri Swami Nath Pathak on the post of Lecturer. There was no vacant post of Lecturer in promotion quota. Therefore, the aforesaid Swami Nath Pathak was not promoted. Consequently, there was no vacant post of assistant teacher.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Ak/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion and financial sanction to the post of Assistant Teacher given that the promotion quota is not vacant.
Whether the petitioner's appointment was legal in light of the factual position regarding vacancy and Sanction.
Whether the writ petition seeking financial approval for salary payment is maintainable.
Surendra Nath Pathak
Dios
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
