Full Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
2. Before giving brief facts of the case, it would be relevant to record the displeasure of the Court in the manner the State has pursued this case. This writ petition was admitted on 9.8.1991 and notices were issued to the respondents and an interim order was passed by which the effect of the order dated 5.6.1991 was stayed and the respondents were directed to pay salary. The interim order dated 9.8.1991 is as under :
'In the meanwhile, the order dated 5.6.1991 contained in Annexure-8 shall not be given effect to. Salary shall also be paid to the petitioner.'
3. By order dated 7.8.2001, the standing counsel was granted 3 weeks' time to file counter-affidavit as last opportunity and the case was directed to be listed immediately after 3 weeks peremptorily. No counter-affidavit was filed by the State. The case was again put up for orders with office report dated 25.6.2001 and 7.9.2001 that no counter-affidavit has been filed.
4. By order dated 31.10.2001, the case was directed to be listed for final hearing and the Court again granted time to the standing counsel to file counter-affidavit till next date of listing. The order dated 31.10.2001 is as under :
'Inspite of last opportunity afforded 'to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit vide order dated 7.8.2001 but no counter-affidavit has been filed till date.'
List this case for final hearing in the next cause list. In the mean while, learned standing counsel may file the counter-affidavit till next date of listing.'
5. The case was thereafter listed on 7.3.2002 and 9.5.2002 but could not be taken up due to paucity of time. It was again taken up on 21.5.2002 and on the request of the standing counsel, one more opportunity was granted to file counter-affidavit. The order dated 21.5.2002 is quoted below :
'In spite of time being granted and stop order being passed, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, as prayed by the learned standing counsel, one more opportunity is given and two weeks' time is granted to file counter-affidavit.
List thereafter in the month of July, 2002.'
6. This case was again listed on 25.7.2002 but no counter-affidavit was filed. Hence, it was listed for hearing on 1.8.2002. No counter-affidavit was filed on this date even in Court. Hence, this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances, was constrained to achieve final hearing.
7. Brief facts of the cases are that Janta Inter College, Phalauda, District Meerut is a recognized institution under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act and is an aided Institution. The petitioner along with other candidates was called for the selection to the post of peon on the vacancy caused on the death of Sri Anand Pal. The name of the petitioner along with other candidates was sent by the employment exchange for selection. He along with other candidates appeared in the selection but as the petitioner did not possess the certificate at the relevant time, he was not given appointment on the post of peon.
8. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a representation before the D.I.O.S. through the Principal of the College. The D.I.O.S. allowed the representation of the petitioner and directed the principal to appoint the petitioner on the post of peon vide letter dated 13th February, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 13th February, 1991, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon and his papers were submitted to the D.I.O.S. for approval. Instead of granting approval, the D.I.O.S. by letter dated 23rd February, 1991 cancelled the entire selection including the appointment of the petitioner. Consequently, an advertisement was published in Newspaper dated 12th March, 1991 for the post of peon. It is alleged that one other post of peon also fell vacant on the promotion of Shri Ghanshyam from class IV to clerical cadre. After interview from amongst 19 persons, the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar were appointed on the post of peon. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is two fold : (i) he has not been paid salary on his previous appointment as peon and (ii) he is further aggrieved by the order dated 5th June, 1991 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) by which the D.I.O.S. has cancelled the entire selection without giving any reasons. Vide Annexure-8 the D.I.O.S, directed the Principal, Janta Inter College, Phalauda, Meerut under Section 4 of the Payment of Disbursement Rules that it is not proper to grant approval to the appointment of Sri Suresh Pal and Shrl Ashok Kumar and work should be taken from the employees who were working at present.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without any reasons and it has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid order contained in Annexure-8 shows that no reasons have been given by the D.I.O.S. as to why approval could not be granted at the relevant time. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, without any reasons and has been passed without giving any opportunity. For these reasons it is vitiated.
11. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.6.1991 is hereby quashed.
12. No order as to costs.