ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERSversusD.I.O.S. AND OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - A No. - 20927 of 1999

Arvind Kumar Shukla And Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

D.I.O.S. And Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Abhai Narain Tiwari, Arvind Kumar
                                   Singh, D.S.M. Tripathi, Indra Raj
                                   Singh, Manoj Kumar, S.K. Upadhyay,
                                   Vimal Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C., P.N.Tripathi, Rajnish Kumar
                                   Srivastava

Along with :
1. Writ - A No. 54643 of 2017:
    Arvind Kumar Shukla and another
                                    Versus
    District Inspector of Schools Jaunpur and 4 others
2. Writ - A No. 57723 of 2016:
    Pawan Kumar Tiwari
                                    Versus
    State of U.P. and 5 Ors.


Court No. - 32
           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.K.
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents in all writ petitions.

2. This is a bunch of three writ petitions.

3. Writ A No. 20927/1999 was filed by three petitioners, viz. Arvind
Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ramesh Chandra Yadav against
orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999 passed by D.I.O.S. concerned
whereby their respective appointments were cancelled.

4. In Writ A No. 20927/1999, following interim order was passed on
24.05.1999 :-

     "Learned        standing        counsel       appearing      for
                                                             WRIA No. 20927 of 1999
                                     2


     respondents no. 1 and 2 prays for and is granted
     four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.
     Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within
     another one week.

     List     the        petition         for        admission   in      week
     commencing 30th August, 1999.

     The petitioners are directed to serve respondent
     no. 3 and 4 by registered post A/D for which step
     is to be taken within a week. Respondents nos. 3
     and 4 may also file a counter affidavit, if any,
     within the aforesaid period of four weeks.

     In     view     of        the       contention       made   that     no
     opportunity         was    granted         to    petitioners     before
     passing       the    impugned        orders,      operation    of   the
     impugned orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999
     passed by the respondent-1 at annexures 14 and 15
     of the writ petition will remain stayed until
     further orders."

5. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners have claimed
that they have worked on basis of aforesaid interim order though learned
counsel for respondent - Committee of Management has objected said
submission.

6. On basis of documents available on record, it appears that petitioners
have worked till 2010. Subsequently, there is no document that they have
been paid salary.

7. Writ A No. 57723/2016 was filed by one Pawan Kumar Tiwari that his
salary be released in pursuance of order dated 21.01.2015 passed by
concerned D.I.O.S. in pursuance of directions passed by this Court in
other writ petition. From perusal of contents of writ petition, it appears
that no salary was paid to petitioner after September, 2009 and this writ
petition remained pending without any interim order.
                                                                    WRIA No. 20927 of 1999
                                      3


8. Subsequently, State-respondent has passed an order dated 03.10.2017
whereby appointment of petitioners viz. Arvind Kumar Shukla and Pawan
Kumar Tiwari were terminated. Said order was challenged by way of
filing Writ A No. 54643/2017 and admittedly, there is no interim order.

9. In aforesaid circumstances, outcome of Writ A Nos. 20927/1999 and
57723/2016 would depend upon outcome of Writ A No. 54643/2017.

10. Court takes note that petitioners have not worked undisputedly after
2010.

11. Argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that once an order of
termination was stayed and writ petition was pending, no subsequent
order can be passed terminating services of petitioners without taking note
of it and it being an ex-parte order, is contrary to law also.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for Committee of Management submits
that initial appointment was contrary to law since in a writ petition filed
by one Vinod Kumar Yadav, there was a ban to initiate any new
appointment though said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous in
2014 as well as he also submits that in the impugned order, it is
mentioned that no post was available.

13. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

14. Interim order passed in writ petition of year 1999 was implemented
till 2010. Subsequently, it was not implemented and petitioners have
never come up before this Court that same be implemented and since
subsequent order of cancellation of appointment is entirely on different
basis, therefore, on such ground, impugned order does not find to be
faulty.

15. Now Court takes note of consideration in impugned order dated
27.09.2017 which is as follows :-

     "सुनवाई में वादी व ्ऺितवादीगण ्षारा िदये गये कथन तथा कायार्लय में उपलब्ध प्ऴजातों के
     पिरशीलन से स्प्ि हो रहा है िक मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िरट यािचका सं० सी-
     60985/2010 ्ऺबन्ध सिमित भारतीय उच्चतर माध्यिमक िव्यालय सुल्तानपुर दिरयावगंज
     जौनपुर बनाम उ०्ऺ० राज्य व अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय ्षरा पािरत आदेश िदनांक
                                                                       WRIA No. 20927 of 1999
                                       4


     14.03.2014 के अनुपालन में अमरनाथ वमार् िश्षा िनदेशक (मा०) उ०्ऺ० इलाहाबाद ्षारा
     िव्यालय की जनशि्व िनधार्रण के सम्बन्ध में आदेश िकया जो िनम्नवत् है।

     (iii) यािचका सं० 26307/2010 ्षुव नारायण िसह बनाम उ्तर ्ऺदेश राज्य व अन्य में
     पािरत मा० उच्च न्यायलय के आदेश िदनांक 22.05.2012 के समादर में शासनादेश िदनांक
     22.02.2013 ्षारा िव्यालय की जनशि्व में 18 ्शेणीवार अनुमन्य पद की सीमा के अन्तगर्त
     एवं पदसृजन के सापे्ष िनयु्व िश्षक एवं िश्षणे्तर कमर्चािरयों को वेतन भुगतान िकया
     जाना पूणर्रूपेण िविधसम्मत एवं औिचत्यपूणर् है। इन 18 पदों से इतर पदों पर वेतन भुगतान
     िकये जाने का औिचत्य नहीं है।

     ्ऺबन्धक ्षारा िदये गये कथनानुसार ्ऺितवादी संख्या 3 व 4 अरिवन्द कुमार शुक्ला व पवन
     कुमार ितवारी की िनयुि्व िव्यालय में िनधार्िरत 18 पदों के इतर की गयी है। ्ऺितवादी संख्या
     3 व 4 अरिवन्द कुमार शुक्ला व पवन कुमार ितवारी पिरचारक का वेतन भुगतान िनधार्िरत
     जनशि्व के अितिर्व पद पर होने के कारण िकया जाना िविधसंगत नहीं होगा।

                                             िनणर्य

     उपरो्व तथ्यों के आलोक में ्ऺितवादी संख्या 3 व 4 अरिवन्द कुमार शुक्ला पिरचारक एवं ्शी
     पवन कुमार ितवारी पिरचारक की िनयुि्व िव्यालय में िनधार्िरत जनशि्व 18 पदों के इतर होने
     के कारण वेतन भुगतान ्ऺदान नहीं िकया जा सकता। तद्नुसार मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत
     यािचका सं0 4277/2017 कमेटी आफ मैनेजमेंट भारतीय उ०मा० िव्यालय सुल्तानपुर
     दिरयावगंज, जौनपुर बनाम स्टेट आफ यू०पी० में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2017 का
     अनुपालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाता है।"

16. Admittedly, petitioners were heard before above order was passed and
that it is well settled that no appointment can be made beyond sanctioned
posts and petitioners were appointed beyond sanctioned posts (18 in
numbers) and aforesaid facts were never brought on record in pleadings
of writ petition of year 1999.

17. Court also takes note of averments of the writ petition, however, does
not find any specific averment in regard to above referred issue on law
and on fact that sanctioned strength was 18 posts was a perverse finding.

18. Otherwise also, Court finds that petitioners are out of service since
2010 i.e. more than 15 years and there is no continuity in service,
therefore, in absence of any substantive material that impugned order
whereby appointment of petitioners were found beyond sanctioned posts,
                                                                                     WRIA No. 20927 of 1999
                                                                5


                                    was erroneous on law as well as on facts, this Court has no reason to
                                    interfere with impugned order.

                                    19. Accordingly, Writ A No. 54643/2017 is dismissed and consequently,
                                    Writ A Nos. 20927/1999 and 57723/2016 are also dismissed and its
                                    consequence shall follow.



                                                                          (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    N. Sinha




Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad