Allahabad High Court
ARVIND TIWARI AND OTHERSversusDISTT. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, upholding the interim stay of the D.I.O.S. order, but the disposal does not constitute a finding that the appointments were proper.
Summary
The petitioners were appointed to short‑term vacancies as Assistant Teachers under a resolution dated 18‑08‑1997, but the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) disapproved their appointments on 02‑02‑2000, citing a state‑wide ban on such appointments. The High Court issued an interim order staying the D.I.O.S. order, relying on the decision in Mukseh Kumar v. State of U.P. (1996). The petitioners later had their regularisation requests rejected on 03‑05‑2025 and filed a separate writ (Writ A No. 4417/2025). The Court, noting that the petitioners were still benefiting from the interim order, disposed of the present writ petition, emphasizing that the disposal does not declare the appointments proper and that the matter remains open in the other writ. The petition was therefore disposed with observations.
Issues considered
- Whether the ban imposed by the State Government on appointments of teachers applies to short‑term vacancy appointments of Assistant Teachers.
- Whether the D.I.O.S. order disapproving the appointments is valid in view of the earlier resolution and the precedent set by Mukseh Kumar v. State of U.P.
Subjects
- short‑term appointment
- ban on appointments
- interim order
- regularisation
- writ petition
- education
- district inspector of schools
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7687 of 2000
Arvind Tiwari And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Distt. Inspector Of Schools And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.C. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for State.
2. Petitioners were admittedly appointed against short-term vacancies in
pursuance of a resolution dated 18.08.1997, however, proposal was
disapproved by impugned order dated 02.02.2000 by D.I.O.S.,
Kushinagar as there was ban imposed on such appointments.
3. This Court has passed an interim order dated 15.02.2000, which is
quoted below :-
"The contention of the petitioner is that he was
appointed on short-term vacancy on the post of
Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade after under going
due process of Selection. The District inspector
of Schools had declined to grant the approval of
his appointment on the ground of ban imposed by
the State Government on appointment of teachers.
Issue notice to the respondents. The respondents
no.1 and 3 are represented by the learned
Standing Counsel. Let notice be issued to the
respondent no.2 by registered post AD fixing a
date in the week commencing 15th May 2000. Steps
to be taken within two weeks.
WRIA No. 7687 of 2000
2
Counter affidavit may be filed within six weeks
and rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two
weeks thereafter. List it in the week commencing
15th May 2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied
upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Mukseh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in
1996(2) UPLBEC 783 in, support of his contention
that the bank is not applicable in regard to the
appointment of the assistant teacher in short
term vacancy.
In view of the aforesaid decision, the operation
of the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 passed by
the District Inspector of Schools Kushi Nagar
respondent no.1 (annexure 9 to the writ petition)
shall remain stayed till further orders of this
Court."
4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners are still
enjoying fruits of interim order though he further submits that
subsequently, their respective claim for regularization was rejected vide
order dated 03.05.2025 on various grounds and a challenge to it by way of
filing a Writ A No. 4417/2025 is still pending.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that this writ petition may be
disposed of on basis of interim order, however, it is made clear that order
of disposal would not construe that appointment of petitioners were
proper and it would be subject matter of above referred writ petition.
6. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 12, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…