9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation 101, is prior approval and not approval . Consequently, when the statute uses the term prior approval , then anything done without prior approval is a nullity. In Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and others, [ 1996 (7) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court held ' Any appointment made in transgression thereof is illegal appointment and is void and confers no right on the appointees.' In the present case, admittedly the appellant was appointed without seeking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools. The said appointment was wholly illegal and was a void order, which conferred no right on the appellant. It is also found that the Regional Joint Director of Education in the impugned order had clearly given a categorical finding of fact that Arun Kumar Singh, respondent No. 5, who was at Sl. No. 1 of the select list had not declined to take the appointment nor gave any resignation. In view of this finding, the appellant could not have been offered appointment. This finding has not being questioned by the appellant in the writ petition - Petition dismissed. - HON BLE TARUN AGARWALA AND HON'BLE ASHOK KUMAR, JJ. ORDER PER: TARUN A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment dated 29.9.2010. The order of the Regional Joint Director was quashed holding that the post in question was a promotional post and the matter was remitted again to the Regional Joint Director of Education to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to all the parties. The Regional Joint Director thereafter passed a fresh order dated 14.3.2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground that no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was obtained before making the appointment and that it was not a case of deemed approval since no application was made by the management seeking prior approval. The Joint Director further held that the appellant who was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the select list could not have been given appointment since no proof of refusal by respondent No. 5 for accepting appointment could be proved. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 25.5.2011. The learned Single Judge held, that under Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation), prior approval of the District Inspector of School is mandatory an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion holds good. Only if it is disapproved it loses it force. Only when a permission is required, the decision does not become effective till permission is obtained. The learned counsel further relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another vs. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and another, 1995 Supp. (3)SCC 456, wherein the distinction between approval and promotion was explained. The Supreme Court held:- Ordinarily, the difference between approval and permission is that in the first case the action holds goods until it is disapproved, while in the other case it does not become effective until permission is obtained. But permission subsequently granted may validate the previous Act. In our view the aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the instant case. The distinction between approval and permission and consultation is not involved in the present case and, consequently, the aforesaid decisions have no bearing with the principles culled in the interpretation of Regulation 101 of the Regulations. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon three decisions of the learned Single Judge in Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teaching staff and permission is contemplated only for filling the post of sweeper. Regulation thus indicates that when the permission is given to the Appointing Authority to fill up post of sweeper. There is no further prior approval is required. This provision being in nature of proviso to the main Regulation shall operate as an inception to the first part of Regulation. Thus, the use of two words in Regulation 101 i.e., 'prior approval' and 'permission' itself negates construction of Regulation as contended by the Counsel for the appellant. 19. When the prior approval of the Inspector is contemplated in Regulation 101, that prior approval embraces itself an examination of all aspects of the matter including existence of the vacancy, nature of the vacancy whether vacancy is to be filled up by the Management or it be filled by appointing the dependent of deceased employee who has claimed for appointment under the scheme of the Regulations 101 to 107. 20. Scheme of Regulations 101 to 107 makes it clear that after receiving an intimation of vacancy, the District Inspector of Schools is empowered to send the application of member of deceased employee, who is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
