UDAI BHAN RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 17,1983, in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1251 of 1976.The brief facts leading to the filing of the said Writ Petition before the High Court are as under:

(2.) On the coming into force of the U. P. Amendment Act, XXVI, 1975, the Managing Committee of the Intermediate College passed a resolution on September 20, 1975, to let the appointments referred to above continue on an ad hoc basis. The District Inspector of Schools was moved to accord approval which he did by his order dated November 25, 1975 clarifying that the duration of appointment will be for six months only. Against this limitation placed in the order, the Managing Committee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education on December 2, 1975. However, the appeal was rejected by the order of July 16, 1975 as not maintainable with the further observation that the appellant herein be deemed to be approved as a permanent lecturer in Hindi on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on February 9, 1975. Against these two orders of November 25, 1975 and July 16, 1976, respondent No. 5 herein approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921) hereinafter called 'the Act' provided prior to its amendment by U. P. Act No. XXVI of 1976 for the constitution of a Selection Committee for the purpose of appointment of teachers to the institution. The qualifications for appointment as teacher were prescribed under the said Act. The appointment of a teacher to be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee needed the approval of the Inspector of Schools. The regulations framed under the said Act prescribe the minimum qualification for a Hindi teacher for Intermediate (Classes XIth and XIIth) as M.A. in Hindi. The appellant was an M.A., B.Ed. and was appointed as a teacher in C.T. Grade with effect from August 1, 1973, and since July, 1974 he was teaching), Hindi to students of XIth and XIIth classes. The respondent No. 5 herein was a B.A., B.Ed. and was appointed as a teacher in C.T. Grade on July 12, 1971. The U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1975 came into effect from August 18, 1975. Clause 2(a) of the said order permits the Managing Committee to make an ad hoc appointment of a teacher for a period not exceeding six months to fill up any substantive or leave vacancy or a vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic session, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act. Clause 2(c) posits that the vacancy of a teacher in the Lecturer Grade or C.T. Grade shall be filled in by the senior-most teacher of the institution in that Grade. The respondent No. 5 herein who had been appointed earlier in point of time as a teacher in C.T. Grade was indisputably senior to the appellant in that grade. It is, however, true that he did not possess the post-graduate qualification in arts which the appellant admittedly possessed. The appellant was also teaching Hindi Classes in XIth and XIIth since July, 1974. That was the point of time when the institution was upgraded to the level of an Intermediate College by the order of the U. P. Board. One of the conditions attached to the order was that six trained lecturers including one for Hindi shall be appointed to the institution. This order was conveyed by the Inspector of Schools by his letter dated September 19, 1974. It is the case of the appellant that four out of the six sanctioned posts were filled in by selection with the approval of the inspector of Schools while the two remaining posts one meant for Hindi and the other for Sociology existed on the date of the advertisement issued in August, 1974. Since the appellant alone was eligible and qualified for appointment as a lecturer in Hindi, he applied for the said post along with others belonging to different institutions. Respondent No. 5 herein could not apply for the said post since he did not possess the qualification of M.A. in Hindi. The Selection Committee selected the appellant for the post of lecturer in Hindi on February 9, 1975 whereupon the Managing Committee of the institution sent the proposal on April 12, 1975 for approval to appoint the appellant on the vacant post. The appellant contends that the Inspector of Schools in total disregard of his previous order dated September 19, 1974, refused to accord approval on the ground that the posts were not created and hence a regular appointment of a substantive nature could not be made. Immediately thereafter, the Director of Education was moved who accorded approval to the creation of two posts of lecturers in the institution. The case of the appellant is that there already existed two vacancies as six posts of lecturers had been created in the institution, but by putting forth a wrong reason the Inspector of Schools had refused approval. The management of the institution thought it wise by way of extra caution to move for creation of the posts which was done as stated above. Soon thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that the Principal in collusion with the Manager proposed the appointment of the respondent No. 5 herein as a lecturer in Hindi on an ad hoc basis even though he was not qualified for appointment, ignoring the selection of the appellant on February 9. 1975 by a duly appointed Selection Committee. The appellant, therefore, contends that the appointment of respondent No. 5 by the Principal of the institution in collusion with the Manager without even conveying the meeting of the Managing Committee was clearly contrary to the regulations. When the members of the Managing Committee learnt about the same, they objected to the appointment whereupon the Manager by his letter dated October 25, 1975 requested the Inspector of Schools to approve the appointment on an ad hoc basis which the latter did by his order dated November 25, 1975 limiting the appointment to six months. In this manner, contends the appellant, his selection by a duly appointed Selection Committee made on February 9, 1975 was set at naught and his rightful claim for appointment was by-passed.