GURU CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the impugned order dated 27.01.2010 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Special Appeal No. 115 of 2010 of the Petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2009 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11400 of 2005.

(2.) The relevant facts very briefly are that one Gajendra Singh Rathi was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Department of Hindi in L.T. Grade in Kisan Inter College, Mohiuddinpur, Meerut, in the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution'). In the Institution, a new section in Class XII of the Arts Faculty was opened in 1973 and in this new section of Class XII Gajendra Singh Rathi was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, however, cancelled the appointment of Gajendra Singh Rathi as a Lecturer in Hindi in Class XII of the Institution. Gajendra Singh Rathi filed Suit No. 795 of 1969 and the Court of the Vth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, decreed the suit declaring Gajendra Singh Rathi as a Lecturer in the Department of Hindi in the Institution by judgment and decree dated 03.01.1991. Consequently, there was a vacancy in the post of Hindi Teacher in L.T. Grade in the Institution. On 10.06.1993, the Principal/Manager of Institution notified several vacancies in the post of Assistant Teachers in the Institution on the Notice Board of the Institution inviting competent and qualified teachers possessing educational qualifications of BA/B. Ed./LT to appear in the interview in the office of the Institution on 27.06.1993 for appointment to the vacancies. The Petitioner appeared in the interview and was selected as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade by the Committee of the Institution on 27.06.1993. The Prabandh Sanchalak, who was managing the affairs of the Institution, sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, along with a covering letter dated 29.06.1993 stating therein that consequent upon the promotion of Gajendra Singh Rathi to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the Institution, the Petitioner was given appointment after selection till duly selected candidate joins the post. By a communication dated 24.12.1994, the District Inspector of Schools provisionally fixed the salary of Gajendra Singh Rathi in the post of Lecturer in the Hindi Department of the Institution and by another communication dated 04.03.1995 the District Inspector of Schools approved the temporary appointment of the Petitioner in the original post of Assistant Teacher up to the time of joining duties by a candidate duly selected by the Commission or up to the time of demotion of Gajendra Singh Rathi from the post of Lecturer to his original post of Assistant Teacher, whichever of the two occurred earlier in time. The Petitioner accordingly worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution until his services were terminated pursuant to the order dated 13.01.1005 of the District Inspector of Schools.

(3.) Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11400 of 2005 in the Allahabad High Court and on 28.02.2005 a learned Single Judge of the High Court hearing the writ petition stayed the order of termination. After counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, learned Single Judge of the High Court heard the writ petition and dismissed the same by order dated 21.12.2009. Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that after 14.07.1992 the vacancy which occurred on account of promotion of Gajendra Singh Rathi to the post of Lecturer was actually a substantive vacancy and the Committee of the Institution had no authority to make any selection and appointment to this vacancy of Assistant Teacher in Hindi in the Institution and it was only the Committee constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 which could make the selection and appointment to this substantive vacancy. The learned Single Judge further held dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the Petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 115 of 2010 before the Division Bench of the High Court and, by the impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal after observing that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the appointment of the Petitioner was dehors the rules and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief.