w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Pal Singh Vesus D.I.O.S. & Others

    Writ - A No. 10330 of 1994

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL

    For the Petitioner: A.K. Goyal, B. Malik, R.P. Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: S.C. A. Kumar, Ashok Kr. Dwivedi, H.N. Pandey, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Pal Singh challenging order dated 01.01.1993, passed by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'DIOS') holding that petitioner was temporarily appointed in a short term vacancy caused due to absence of one Harbir Singh for the period 01.07.1985 to 31.07.1985 only. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 04/05.03.1994 deciding petitioner's representation, rejecting the same and confirming order dated 01.01.1993.

2. Dispute relates to appointment on Class III post (Clerk), in Vedic Higher Secondary School, Faizpur Nainana, District Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'College'). Aforesaid college is a Secondary Educational Institution recognized by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921') and Regulation framed thereunder. College is also in grant-in-aid for the purpose of payment of salary to its teaching and non-teaching staff and governed by U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1971').

3. One Harbir Singh, Clerk, working in College proceeded on one year's leave without pay with effect from 1.1.1984 to 31.12.1984. To fill in aforesaid leave vacancy, an advertisement was published on 10.06.1984 in the daily news paper "Dainik Prabhat". Besides other candidates, respondent-4, Sahendra Singh Panwar also applied for appointment in the aforesaid leave vacancy. Instead of completing aforesaid selection, Appointing Authority made temporary promotion of a Class IV employee i.e. Ompal Singh Tomer.

4. Harbir Singh submitted resignation on 22.07.1984. Vacancy caused due to resignation of Harbir Singh was advertised in daily news paper "Dainik Jagran" on 13.12.1984, pursuant whereto, petitioner and some other candidates applied. Manager of College, vide letter dated 01.01.1985, appointed petitioner on one year's probation on the post of Clerk. Petitioner claimed that he joined on the post of Clerk, in the College, on 04.01.1985 and thereafter continued to discharge his duties on the aforesaid post. DIOS, however, granted approval to appointment of petitioner only for the period of 04.01.1985 to 30.06.1985. Petitioner made a representation dated 24.06.1985, stating that since he was appointed on probation of one year on substantive basis, therefore, approval granted up to 30.06.1985 was not correct and it ought to be corrected accordingly. However, Manager of College vide letter dated 30.06.1985 informed petitioner that his appointment on the post of Clerk has been extended up to 31.12.1985. Again, petitioner made a representation dated 03.07.1985 that his appointment having been made on one year's probation, question of extension does not arise and it needs correction,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

therefore, DIOS be requested to make necessary correction in approval letter issued by him. No action was taken and in the meantime, Deputy Director of Education, Region-I (hereinafter referred to as 'DDE') appointed Authorised Controller in the College on 24.08.1985, who took over charge of management on 26.08.1985 and worked up to 30.10.1985. Before Authorized Controller, Harbir Singh submitted an affidavit dated 19.10.1985 that he had already resigned from the post of Clerk on 22.07.1984. Authorized Controller informed DIOS about the factum of resignation tendered by Harbir Singh, and thereby causing substantive vacancy on a Class III post in the College. Thereafter DIOS passed order dated 04.11.1985 according approval to appointment of petitioner on probation with effect from 01.07.1985. Manager of College submitted report dated 02.12.1985 informing DIOS that pursuant to his letter dated 04.11.1985, petitioner has been allowed to join on the post of Clerk in the forenoon on 02.12.1985. Petitioner, thereafter received a letter dated 26.08.1985 sent by Sri Rajveer Singh, Manager of College stating with reference to Principal's letter dated 03.06.1985 and DIOS's letter dated 31.07.1985, that management in its meeting dated 24.08.1985 has resolved that petitioner's appointment on the post of Clerk in the College shall continue only up to 31.08.1985 and would stand automatically terminated on 01.09.1985.

5. It also appears that after temporary promotion of Om Pal Singh Tomar, a Class IV employee, on the post of Clerk, an attempt was made by Principal of College to appoint one Rishi Pal on Class IV post but the said appointment was not approved by DIOS vide letter dated 05.02.1986. Reason given in the letter dated 05.02.1986 is that since Om Pal Singh was not qualified, having less than five years of service which is an eligibility condition for promotion on the post of Clerk, therefore, his promotion being not valid, cannot be approved. Thus no Class IV post fell vacant due to alleged promotion of Om Pal Singh Tomar, hence, no temporary appointment of Rishi Pal in Class IV post could be made and it is irregular hence approval for payment of salary cannot be granted.00018001

6. Respondent-4, Sahendra Singh Panwar claiming his appointment on Class IV post filed Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1986 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.02.1986. In the meantime, management also filed a Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986 challenging DIOS's order dated 04.11.1985 whereby petitioner's appointment on Class III post, on probation, was approved with effect from 01.07.1985. Therein, an interim order was passed and it resulted interruption in functioning of petitioner on Class III post. It may be placed on record that Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986 was dismissed on 15.11.2006. Respondent-4 in the meantime, also filed another Writ Petition No. 13912 of 1989 claiming that he has already been appointed and, therefore, must be paid salary. No order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Here it may also be placed on record that Writ Petition No. 13912 of 1989 was dismissed on 16.12.2003 for want of prosecution. DIOS vide letter dated 11.01.1990 informed Authorized Controller that office of DIOS never objected to the joining of petitioner on the post of Clerk consequent whereto Authorized Controller issued letter dated 16.01.1990 directing petitioner to join on the post of Clerk by 22.01.1990. This letter dated 16.1.1990 of Authorized Controller was challenged by respondent-4 by means of Writ Petition No. 3765 of 1990 and therein interim order was passed on 08.02.1990. Petitioner was impleaded as respondent-3 in the aforesaid writ petition. Here also we may place on record that above Writ Petition No. 3765 of 1990 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.01.2006.

7. Strangely, Principal himself filed Writ Petition no. NIL of 1992 stating that he had also made a representation dated 21.01.1992 before DIOS and he must be directed to decide the same taking decision, whether Sahendra Singh Panwar or Om Pal Singh Tomar are entitled to salary on the post of Clerk as both are claiming the same. Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.1992, directing DIOS to decide aforesaid representation within a period of one month. Consequently, DIOS passed order dated 01.01.1993 amending its letter dated 04.11.1985, to the extent that approval granted on the post of Class III, to appointment of petitioner is from 01.07.1985 to 31.07.1985; to the appointment of Om Pal Singh Tomar, from 01.09.1985 to 10.12.1985, and to appointment of Sahendra Singh Panwar from 11.12.1985 till one year's probation. Aforesaid order was passed by DIOS without giving any hearing or complying principles of natural justice giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Consequently, petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 12.03.1993 and additional representations dated 30.08.1993 and 17.09.1993. Said representations were rejected by DIOS vide order dated 4/5.03.1994 confirming earlier order dated 01.01.1993.

8. Challenging aforesaid two orders, Sri B. Malik, counsel for petitioner contended that Harbir Singh actually submitted his resignation on 22.07.1984. There was no requirement of acceptance thereof under any statutory provision. After said resignation, selection was made in which petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Clerk. This appointment was approved by DIOS vide order dated 04.11.1985 which order remained unchallenged by respondent-4 and attained finality. That being so, DIOS had no power to review said order dated 04.11.1985 after several years and, therefore, impugned order dated 01.01.1993 is wholly without jurisdiction. Management's letter of termination dated 26.08.1985 served on petitioner was illegal since on that date college was being managed by Authorized Controller. He further submitted that order passed by DIOS on petitioner's representations is illegal, inasmuch as the then DIOS was under transfer and therefore, should not have decided the matter on 05.03.1994. He further contended that respondent-4 was never appointed with approval of DIOS therefore, had no claim to the post in question.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed by DIOS, Meerut sworn by Sri Shiv Kumar Ojha, then posted on DIOS. It is stated therein that in year 1997, a new district Baghpat was created and the area in which college is situated, now falls within the jurisdiction of DIOS, Baghpat. Record relating to College has also been transmitted to DIOS, Baghpat and proper reply can be given by DIOS, Baghpat, who is not impleaded as party in the writ petition and petitioner must implead the same.

10. Respondent-2 has also filed its counter affidavit sworn by Sri Indrapal claiming himself to be Vice-chairman of Committee of Management of College. He has stated that there was a dispute of Management but presently Committee of Management in which Indrapal Singh has been elected as Vice-Chairman is duly recognized and functional. He has supported the claim of petitioner that he was duly appointed after following procedure prescribed in Regulations. The alleged appointment of respondent-4 is illegal having not been approved by DIOS. He has also placed on record, advertisement dated 13.12.1984 in which vacancy was advertised; selection proceedings conducted by Selection Committee; minutes of meeting dated 23.12.1984; consequential proposal sent by Manager to DIOS seeking approval to appointment of petitioner on Class III post; appointment letter dated 01.01.1985; joining letter dated 04.01.1985; DIOS's letter dated 14.03.1985 sent to Manager/Prinicipal of College; Manager's letter dated 25.03.1985 sent to DIOS and subsequent letters of Manager dated 02.04.1985 (in reply to letter dated 14.03.1985 of DIOS). It has also placed on record Manager's letter dated 25.06.1985 for extension of service of Petitioner up to 31.12.1985, order dated 24.08.1985 appointing Authorized Controller, advertisement dated 23.08.1985 and 25.08.1985 for the post of Clerk and letter dated 02.12.1985 issued communicating postponement of interview indefinitely. It has also placed on record various letters supporting appointment of petitioner on Class III post.

11. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-3, Principal of College and he also placed on record the same documents as have been placed on record by respondent-2 but it has said nothing on merits.

12. Subsequently DIOS, Baghpat has also been impleaded as respondent-5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of DIOS, Baghpat. It has been stated therein that management sent proposal for approval of petitioner's appointment on Class III post due to vacancy caused by resignation of Harbir Singh, Clerk vide resignation letter dated 22.07.1984. DIOS, Merrut by letter dated 04.11.1985 noted approval for one year's probation with effect from 01.07.1985. Petitioner joined on the post of Clerk on 02.12.1985. Subsequently by letter dated 01.01.1993, letter dated 04.11.1985 was amended and therein approval was noted in respect of appointment of respondent-4 on the post of Clerk in the vacancy caused due to resignation of Sri Harbir Singh. It is also stated that impugned order dated 01.01.1993 has been confirmed by DIOS by subsequent order dated 05.03.1993. In the para-wise reply it is admitted that Om Pal Singh Tomar did not possess five year's experience as Class IV employee, therefore was ineligible for promotion to the post of Clerk. With respect to selection of petitioner on temporary vacancy caused due to absence of Harbir Singh, it is said that since resignation of Sri Harbir Singh was not accepted as provided in law, therefore, said selection and appointment of petitioner is of no legal consequence. The said appointment was also not approved by DIOS. Writ Petition no. 3557 of 1986 has already been dismissed on 15.11.2006. With respect to order dated 05.03.1993, it is said that Smt. Champa Mishra, the then DIOS passed order when she was in office but while dispatching the same, Clerk concerned got it countersigned by subsequently posted DIOS, Sri S.S. Rawat, but on the date when Smt. Champa Mishra passed order, she was holding the office and there was no illegality. Respondent-4 has got salary pursuant to order dated 26.07.1994 passed in Writ Petition no. 23890 of 1994 filed by him. The above Writ Petition No. 23890 of 1994 has been dismissed on 15.12.2017 as having rendered infructuous.

13. Respondent-4 has also contested this writ petition and filed counter affidavit stating that alleged resignation of Harbir Singh submitted in 1984 is nonest, inasmuch as, said resignation was actually submitted in the year 1985 and not 1984. It is said that Harbir Singh tendered resignation on 16.08.1985, which was accepted by Committee of Management on 24.08.1985. Petitioner submitted application dated 23.12.1984 pursuant to advertisement dated 10.05.1984, while respondent-4 had already submitted application on 20.06.1984. Another advertisement was made on 13.12.1984 which was an open selection and every candidate was asked to appear before Selection Committee along with necessary testimonials. Petitioner's appointment was purely temporary since Harbir Singh had not tendered his resignation, therefore, appointment of petitioner was disapproved by DIOS vide order dated 04.04.1985. Order dated 04.04.1985 was never challenged by petitioner and has attained finality. DIOS granted approval to appointment of petitioner for a short term from 04.01.1985 to 30.06.1985 only and that too, in the interest of institution. No representations dated 24.05.1985 and 24.06.1985 were submitted to DIOS. Management's letter extending temporary appointment of petitioner upto 31.12.1985 was disapproved by DIOS vide letter dated 31.07.1985 and DIOS required Management first to seek resignation of Harbir Singh, terminate him and thereafter to proceed to make substantive appointment. Representation dated 03.07.1985 is a forged document. Authorized Controller never took charge in view of interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11787 of 1985. Harbir Singh submitted resignation on 16.08.1985 and it was accepted by Management on 24.08.1985 (Annexure CA-3 to Counter Affidavit of respondent-4). Vacancy on Class III post thus occurred on 24.08.1985 and, therefore, question of substantive appointment prior thereto does not arise. Petitioner did not join the institution since 02.12.1985. Since 11.12.1985 onward respondent-4 is working on Class III post and is discharging duties. Petitioner not only was terminated/ceased to work but also withdrew his security through his application dated 22.09.1985 and also submitted an affidavit recognizing all these facts. A copy of said affidavit dated 17.12.1985 has been filed as Annexure-CA-7 to counter affidavit.

14. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner in reply to counter affidavit of respondent-3, publication of advertisement dated 25.08.1985 is not disputed and in para 11 it is admitted that it was postponed indefinitely. In para 12 of rejoinder affidavit withdrawal of security amount of Rs. 2000/- is also admitted. In para 15 it is said that there was no occasion for consideration of appointment of respondent-4 and issuance of appointment letter dated 09.12.1985 and allow his (respondent-4) joining on 11.02.1985. It is also said in para 16 that petitioner was permitted to join by the Authorized Controller vide letter dated 16.01.1990, pursuant whereto, petitioner joined on 22.01.1990. It is averred in para 26 that alleged document dated 16.08.1985 is forged one. In para 30 it is said that petitioner rejoined on 02.12.1985 pursuant to order dated 04.11.1985.

15. From the above pleadings certain facts which I find uncontroverted are that Harbir Singh was working on Class III post i.e. Clerk in the College and proceeded on one year's leave without pay from 01.01.1984 to 31.12.1984. Advertisement was published by Management in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran", Meerut on 13.12.1984 inviting candidates for interview on 23.12.1984. Aforesaid advertisement, Annexure-2 to writ petition, shows that it was mentioned that appointment shall be made on one year's probation. On 01.01.1985 letter of appointment was issued to petitioner appointing him on one year's probation. This appointment of petitioner on the post of Clerk was disapproved by DIOS vide letter dated 26.03.1985/04.04.1985 a copy whereof is Annexure-CA-2 to Counter affidavit filed by respondent-2. Subsequently DIOS vide letter dated 31.08.1985 informed Management that petitioner's temporary appointment on the post of Clerk is noted from 04.01.1985 to 30.06.1985 on the condition that Management shall obtain resignation from Harbir Singh or terminate him by 30.06.1985 and thereafter proceed to make regular appointment on the post of Clerk. Proposal of temporary appointment of petitioner was disapproved by DIOS vide letter dated 31.07.1985 Annexure-CA-2 to counter affidavit of respondent-4.

16. The first aspect which has to be considered in this case is as to when substantive vacancy on the post of Clerk occurred. Petitioner's case is that Harbir Singh submitted resignation on 22.07.1984 causing substantive vacancy on the post of Clerk. Respondent-4 has denied this fact and claim that Harbir Singh tendered his resignation on 16.08.1985 which was accepted on 24.08.1985. Therefore, substantive vacancy occurred on or after 24.08.1985. Resignation letter alleged to have been submitted by Haribir Singh on 22.07.1984 is not on record. Respondent-4, however, has filed copy of resignation letter dated 16.08.1985 as Annexure CA-3 which shows that Harbir Singh claimed that he treated himself to have been terminated from service pursuant to Manager's register letters dated 13.04.1984 and 17.05.1984. He also said that Principal of the College was also informed of this fact. However, he has further said that in any case his resignation may be treated with effect from 16.08.1985. It is this letter which was accepted by Manager of the College on 24.08.1985. This shows that as a matter of fact, no resignation was earlier submitted by Harbir Singh and, therefore, he stated in his letter dated 16.08.1985 that, if necessary, his registration be treated with effect from 16.08.1985. There cannot be any resignation by conduct or by oral information. There has to be a written unconditional resignation by concerned person and it is also required to be accepted by competent authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that till 24.08.1985 any substantive vacancy on the post of Clerk had arisen in the College due to alleged resignation of Harbir Singh on 22.07.1984.

17. Now comes question of nature of appointment of petitioner. Record shows that first advertisement was published by College for making appointment of Clerk in leave vacancy vide advertisement dated 10.06.1984. Pursuant thereto, Respondent-4 submitted application on 20.6.1984. This fact has been stated by petitioner in para 3 of writ petition and not disputed by Respondent-4 while replying the said paragraph in para 4 of counter affidavit. The aforesaid advertisement did not result in any selection. Thereafter another advertisement was published in the daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" on 13.12.1984 stating that the appointment shall be made on one year probation. Obviously this advertisement is for substantive vacancy. Intending candidates were required to appear before Selection Committee for interview on 23.12.1984. Petitioner submitted application on 22.12.1984. Respondent-4 in para 7 of the counter affidavit has asserted that application was submitted by petitioner on 23.12.1984 in pursuance to advertisement dated 10.05.1984. This statement of Respondent-4 cannot be believed for the reason that publication of another advertisement on 13.12.1984 for the same post is not disputed by Respondent-4 in paras 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit. That being so, question of submitting an application on 23.12.1984 pursuant to alleged first advertisement dated 10.05.1984 does not arise. Annexure 3 to writ petition which is letter of appointment issued to petitioner on 01.01.1985, clearly shows that date of application of petitioner is 22.12.1984 and not 23.12.1984. Letter of appointment further says that petitioner was appointed on probation of one year on the post of Clerk. Aforesaid appointment of petitioner was made by Manager without any approval of DIOS inasmuch as interview was taken on 23.12.1984 and appointment letter was issued on 01.01.1985, which shows that documents were not sent to DIOS for approval before making appointment. Said letters, in fact, were sent to DIOS by Management/Principal of the College vide letter dated 15.01.1985 inasmuch as Annexure CA-5 of counter affidavit filed by Respondent-3, is a letter of DIOS dated 13/14.03.1985 which is in reference to Management's letter dated 15.01.1985. It is in respect to the appointment on the post of Clerk on one year probation. DIOS required following information from Management of the College:

(i) Original as well as true copy of resignation since there is no reference of resignation of Harbir Singh Clerk in the documents sent to DIOS.

(ii) Record of resolution confirming the appointment.

(iii) Status regarding reservation.

18. Management of College did not reply to the said letter dated 13/14.03.1985 and instead required DIOS to convey approval for payment of salary. In this regard, it also refers to oral communication between Harbir Singh and office of DIOS and correspondence made with him. It is said that those documents were sent to office of DIOS by Principal's letter dated 13.03.1985. Another letter was sent by Sri Rajveer Singh, Manager of the College to DIOS on 02.04.1985 stating that neither Harbir Singh submitted any resignation nor it is necessary for the reason that he had gone on leave without pay upto 31.12.1984 and that period has expired. Further Manager sent letters dated 13.04.1984 and 17.05.1984, which show that proceedings for cancellation of leave and treating the post vacant were already initiated. Accordingly, post was treated vacant with effect from 16.05.1984 and there was no requirement of resignation of Harbir Singh. There was only one post of Clerk in the College and reservation does not apply. Therefore, request was made to DIOS for granting approval to appointment of petitioner on the post of Clerk.

19. Approval, however, was not granted and proposal of appointment of petitioner on the post of Clerk was disapproved by DIOS vide letter dated 26.03.1985/04.04.1985 (Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent-2). Management sent another letter dated 06.04.1985 to DIOS stating that denial of approval is not justified and shows non application of mind. Management tried to file an affidavit of Suraj Pal, the then Principal of the College stating that Harbir Singh informed him orally that he had been appointed substantively in Delhi Transport Corporation and hence would not come back, therefore, on that basis, his post was treated vacant. DIOS thereafter, it appears, in the interest of College, noted appointment of petitioner on temporary basis for the period 04.01.1985 to 30.06.1985 and required Management to get resignation of Harbir Singh or terminate him by 30.06.1985 and thereafter proceed to make substantive appointment on the post of Clerk in accordance with law. In reply to said letter, Management sent letter dated 25.06.1985 to DIOS requesting him to extend period of approval upto 31.12.1985. Thereafter, an advertisement was published on 23.08.1985 and 25.08.1985, inviting applications for the post of Clerk fixing 29.09.1985 as the date for interview. Said interview, however, was postponed indefinitely. Since, DIOS had granted approval only for limited period, Management issued letter dated 26.08.1985 informing petitioner that he would stand terminated with effect from 01.09.1985. Letter dated 26.8.1985 reads as under:-

'Language'

With reference to Principal's letter no./30/85-86 dated 30.6.85, inviting your attention towards letter no. Ma-2/7316/85-86 dated 31.07.1985 of DIOS Meerut and Resolution No.3 dated 24.8.85 of the meeting of Committee of Management, this is to say that your appointment on the post of Clerk in this Institution shall continue upto 31.8.85 only and it would come to an end on 1.9.85 automatically, therefore, you will hand over the charge of your post to Sri Om Pal Singh Orderly (Peon) in compliance of Resolution no.5 of the aforesaid meeting of Committee of Management." (English translation by Court) (Emphasis added)

20. Thereafter, we find that on 04.11.1985 DIOS sent letter to Authorized Controller/Management informing that as per recommendation dated 30.10.1985 made by Authorized Controller of the College, appointment of petitioner on the post of Clerk is noted for one year on probation with effect from 01.07.1985. Petitioner having already been terminated with effect from 01.01.1985 was out of service. Management required him to join pursuant to DIOS letter dated 04.11.1985 whereupon petitioner was allowed to join on the post of Clerk on 02.12.1985.

21. Letter dated 4.11.1985 of DIOS, whereby appointment of the petitioner was approved on probation for one year, was challenged by Management in Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986 which has ultimately been dismissed on 15.11.2006. Result is that the order dated 04.11.1985 continue to operate. It also appears that during pendency of aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986, since interim order was operating, Respondent-4 intervened but once writ petition is dismissed, the result would be as if no interim order was passed, and petitioner would be entitled to all benefits flowing from order dated 04.11.1985 passed by DIOS whereagainst challenge made by Management failed after dismissal of writ petition.

22. It may also be placed on record that claiming his appointment, Respondent-4 filed writ petition No. 13912 of 1989 wherein he also sought a mandamus for payment of salary but the said writ petition has also been dismissed on 16.12.2003.

23. There is one more letter issued by DIOS on 11.01.1990 informing College that office of DIOS has never objected to joining of petitioner on the post of Clerk. It appears that when interim order was passed in Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986, petitioner was not allowed to continue and thereafter DIOS issued letter dated 11.01.1990, clarifying that joining of petitioner was never objected by DIOS. Consequently, Management of College issued letter dated 16.01.1990 directing petitioner to join on the post of Clerk on 22.01.1990. Even this letter dated 16.01.1990 was challenged by Respondent-4 in Writ Petition No. 3765 of 1990 which has also been dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.01.2006.

24. The order impugned in present writ petition has its genesis to the period when above writ petitions were pending. Writ Petition No. NIL of 1992 was filed by Principal of the College stating that he had made a representation dated 21.01.1992 to DIOS, seeking clarification as to who should be paid salary, whether Respondent-4 i.e. Sahendra Singh Panwar or Om Pal Singh Tomar. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.1992 requiring DIOS to take decision on the aforesaid representation, whereupon DIOS passed order dated 01.01.1993, reviewing its order dated 04.11.1985 to the extent that petitioner's appointment on the post of Clerk was approved from 01.07.1985 to 31.07.1985. Appointment of Om Pal Singh Tomar from 01.09.1985 to 10.12.1985 and Sahendra Singh Panwar from 11.12.1985 onwards on one year probation. In my view, order dated 01.01.1993 passed by DIOS reviewing its order dated 04.11.1985 is patently illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as DIOS was required to decide representation of Principal and not to review its letter dated 04.11.1985 which was already subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1986 which has ultimately been dismissed on 15.11.2006. Principal had only required clarification vis-a-vis Sahendra Singh Panwar and Om Pal Singh. Both these persons were not appointed on the post of Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.1984 and appointment already made on 01.01.1985 was approved by DIOS on 04.11.1985. There was no occasion for DIOS to grant approval to any other person subsequently, on the same post of Clerk.

25. In the circumstances, I find no hesitation in holding that order dated 01.01.1993 passed by DIOS is patently illegal and cannot be sustained.

26. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 01.01.1993 passed by DIOS is hereby set aside.

O R