Allahabad High Court
RAM DHANI PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent and expecting a prompt decision.
Summary
Ram Dhani Prasad was appointed as Officiating Principal of an educational institution on 01‑04‑2025 following a Committee resolution, but the required financial approval from the District Inspector of Schools was not granted despite submission of all documents. The petitioner relied on a recent decision of this Court in Veeresh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. to press his claim. The respondents argued that the district inspector should consider the earlier ratio. The Court, noting that the matter could be resolved through a representation before the respondent, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to file a representation within ten days and expecting an expeditious decision by the respondent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as no further purpose was served by keeping it pending.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner when financial approval for his appointment as Officiating Principal has not been granted?
- Whether the district inspector of schools must act in accordance with the ratio laid down in Veeresh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P.
Subjects
- appointment
- officiating principal
- financial approval
- district inspector of schools
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16060 of 2026
Ram Dhani Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kedar Nath Mishra, Rohit Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner
was appointed as an Officiating Principal of the Institution, on account of
the fact that no appointments were made in spite of the requisition being
sent, on the retirement of the erstwhile Principal.
3. In pursuance of the resolution of the Committee of Management, the
petitioner was appointed on 01.04.2025; and the signature of the
petitioner has also been attested; however, financial approval has not been
granted by the District Inspector of Schools, in spite of the fact that all the
required documents have been forwarded by the Management. He places
reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Veeresh Chandra
Mishra and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Special Appeal No.
209 of 2026, which has been approved by the Apex Court by way of an
order dated 15.09.2026 passed in S.L.P. No. 32854 of 2026.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that due consideration shall be
accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria keeping in mind the
ratio laid down by this Court and has approved upto the stage of Apex
Court, mentioned herein above.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
the aforesaid writ petition pending and by the consent of the parties, the
WRIA No. 16060 of 2026
2
writ petition is being decided at the admission stage, directing the
petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.2 within 10
days from today, along with the certified copy of this order; and in the
event such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the said
period, it is expected that the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide
the same expeditiously, preferably within the next one month.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
October 1, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…