Top News

Prayagraj, 28 April. Allahabad High Court has said in an important comment that such appointments will be considered illegal, in which the prescribed selection process has not been followed. The High Court has rejected the petition of two employees of a junior high school located in Varanasi and declared their appointment illegal. Justice Manjurani Chauhan gave this decision on the petition of Lakshmi Shankar Tiwari and one other.

Illegal appointment of two employees of a junior high school in Varanasi

The petitioners had challenged the December 20, 2014 order of the Director of Education (Basic). He also demanded non-interference in salary payment and service. The petitioners claimed that they were working in the school since 1980 on the posts of peon and clerk respectively and their appointments were later wrongly changed.

The court said that the petitioners presented serious contradictions in their claims. Initially he stated the year of appointment as 1977, but later it was changed to 1980. The court called it an attempt to hide facts and mislead. The court said that the person seeking relief under Article 226 should come with ‘clean hands’, but this did not happen in this case.

The court said that one of the petitioners was allegedly appointed when he was below 18 years of age. The appointment of a minor is completely illegal and void as per law. The court also said that necessary rules such as issuance of advertisement, formation of selection committee and approval of the competent authority were not followed in the appointment process. In such a situation the appointment cannot be considered valid.

Huge discrepancies in the documents presented on record

Huge discrepancies were also found in the documents presented on record. Different documents with the same reference number containing different information raised questions about their authenticity. The court considered this a sign of possible manipulation and fraud. The High Court said that unless the appointment is valid and approved, salary cannot be claimed from the state government. Since the petitioners could not prove the validity of their appointment, they are not entitled to the salary.