Abdul Sattar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Krishna Ji Khare, advocate, learned standing counsel on behalf respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 as well as counsel for respondent Nos. 10 to 16.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage without calling any counter-affidavit specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

It may be recorded that the learned standing counsel has produced a copy of the Government order dated 11.5.2001, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the provisions of the U.P. Direct Recruitment Group-D Posts Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1986) notified on 8.9.1986, are in force and no appointment on Class IV posts in recognized and aided Intermediate colleges shall be approved except when made in accordance to said Rules, 1986. It may be recorded that under Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act, no procedure has been prescribed for such appointment. The Government order dated 11.5.2001 is referable to the powers vested in the State Government u/s 9(4) of the Intermediate Education Act. The controversy with regard to the procedure to be followed in the matter of appointment of ministerial and Class-IV employees in Intermediate colleges has been explained in detail by this Court in the case of "Principal Adarsh Inter College, Umari, Bijnor v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2010 (1) ADJ 403". The judgment of the single Judge stands affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court with the dismissal of Special Appeal No. 1851 of 2009 Principal, Adarsh Inter-College, Umari v. State of U.P. and Ors. filed against the same, vide judgment and order dated 3.12.2009.

In view of the aforesaid, it is now a settled legal position that appointment on Class-IV posts which can be approved, have to be made through a Selection Committee which must comprise of a member nominated by the District Magistrate. Since the Selection Committee, in pursuance whereof petitioner Nos. 10 to 16 have been appointed, did comprise of a nominee of District Magistrate, the selection are held to be illegal.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for the reasons that the selections held are not in accordance with law. As a result, the entire proceedings stands vitiated. The order of approval dated 20.11.2009 is hereby set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Principal of the institution is directed to re-advertise the vacancy in accordance with law and to hold fresh selections having regard to the Government order applicable and the procedure prescribed, within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Respondent Nos. 10 to 16 are at liberty to apply.