Ram Asrey Singh vs Distt.Basic Shiksha Adhikari,Mirzapur and Others

S. R. Singh, J.—The appointment order dated 2911994 (annexed as annexure 4 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the third respondent is sought to be quashed on the grounds that the vacancy in the post was never advertised and that the 3rd respondent has been appointed on extraneous consideration as he happened to be son of the brother inlaw of the then District Basic Education Officer Sri Bans Narain Pandey.

It is not disputed that the vacancy against which the third respondent has been appointed was not advertised. Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978 inhibits any appointment against a vacancy except after its advertisement in at least one newspaper having wide circulation in the locality and the intimation of such vacancy 10 the District Basic Education Officer. The appointment of the 3rd respondent having admittedly been made without advertisement cannot be sustained in view of the same being against the inhibition contained in Rule 7 of the statutory services Rules. Such an appointment is also hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It may be observed that not only the petitioner is aggrieved but aggrieved are also all those qualified persons who could have applied for the post had it been advertised in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules aforestated. That apart the allegation that third respondent happens to be son of the brotherinlaw of the then District Basic Shiksha Adhikari as made in paragraphs 8/9 of the writ petition is not disputed in the counter affidavit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment of the third respondent was made in flagrant violation of statutory rules and on extraneous consideration, it is for the reasons aforestated that I am of the view that the appointment in so far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned cannot be sustained in law.

It is true, that the petitioner as well as the third respondent participated in the selection proceedings held pursuant to an advertisement dated 1811994 but the selection pursuant to said advertisement was admittedly in respect of one post of Head Master and one post of Assistant Teacher other than the post against which the 3rd respondent has been appointed.

Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2911994 in so far as it relates to the 3rd respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to hold fresh selection to the post in question in accordance with law.