ROMANCH RAM YADVA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order dtd. 7/7/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 7080 of 2007, whereby, while not acceeding to the prayer made by the petitioner for reinstatement in the post of Assistant Teacher, direction was issued to the respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider payment of salary for the period from 1/1/1996 to July, 2001 if a representation is made within 30 days, by disposing such representation by a speaking and reasoned order and specifying as to whether the petitioner had worked in the school during that period or not.

(2.) The case of the appellant, as set out in the writ petition, in brief, is that Durga Krishi Higher Secondary School, Jaikari is an establishment run by a registered society, named and styled as 'Laxmi Kumari Seva Samiti, Jashpur Nagar' and that the said school is a government-aided school. On his application, as he had the requisite qualification for the post of Teacher, he was appointed vide order dtd. 1/1/1996 and that the respondent No. 2, District Education Officer, Jashpur had regularized his service w.e.f. 6/6/1996 vide order dtd. 4/9/1999. However, while he continued to work up to 2/7/2001, on and from 3/7/2001, he was prevented from signing the attendance register and his name was also not mentioned in that register and resultantly, he was not given any teaching assignment. Though repeated representations had been made, the same failed to evoke any response and as such, recourse was taken by filing the writ petition praying for a direction to respondents to re-instate him and to provide salary from 1/1/1996 till his reinstatement with bank rate interest.

(3.) The respondent No. 3, i.e., the Head Master of the school filed a reply-affidavit stating that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition. It is stated that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in anticipation of grant of a sanctioned post of Science Teacher, which, however, was not sanctioned and that the appellant was, thus, appointed to a non-existent post. There were only three sanctioned posts of Science/Mathematics Teacher which were all filled up. It is also pleaded that neither any advertisement was issued nor any procedure was followed for appointment of the appellant. When the post was not sanctioned, the appellant was asked not to attend school. It is further stated that the regularization order of the appellant recited that the order of regularization would stand cancelled if the appointment was on a non-sanctioned post or if the 100-point roster of the State Government was not followed. Both the conditions having not been fulfilled, it is stated that the regularization order is of no consequence. It is stated that salary of the appellant was also not disbursed by the District Education Officer, as a result of which, no salary could be paid.