Surendra Kumar Srivastava and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 4. these facts are stated in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by sri awadh bihari chaubey dated 27.9.1983. therefore, it becomes clear that upon conclusion of the enquiry as directed by the director of education it has been found that the petitioners were validly' appointed teachers in the institution in question and their salary as well as arrears have all been released.bharati sapru, j.1. the petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 22.8.1983, which is an order passed by the accounts officer by which their salaries were stopped. the petitioners' case is that they were validly appointed teachers in the azad uchchatar madhyamik vidyalaya, runuwan pokharbhinda, gorakhpur.it is their contention that the posts had been created validly and they had been appointed validly under the orders of the district inspector of schools. upon receiving a complaint from a committee of management the director of education at allahabad issued a letter on 6.4.1983 directing that the salary should only be paid after scrutiny and investigation of the case and, therefore, their salaries were stopped.3. a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the state in which it has been stated that the arrears have also been paid to the petitioners after the scrutiny and investigation was over.4. these facts are stated in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by sri awadh bihari chaubey dated 27.9.1983. therefore, it becomes clear that upon conclusion of the enquiry as directed by the director of education it has been found that the petitioners were validly' appointed teachers in the institution in question and their salary as well as arrears have all been released. the petitioners having worked continuously since the year 1980 and even they are continuing in service, the impugned order dated 22.8.1983 deserves to be set aside.5. this writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 22.8.1983 is set aside. the petitioners will continue in service as before and will continue to receive their salaries.