RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB.

(2.) The petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh who is a drawing teacher in Diwan Chand Arya Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Road, has by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claimed three reliefs : (i) that he should be paid the salary for the period 1-12-65 to 2-2-1967 ; (ii) he should be granted selection grade from March, 1982, and (iii) a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the adverse entry made in the A.C.R. of the petitioner by respondents 3 and 4 in the year 1984-85.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior drawing teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 160-300 on 20th August, 1964. This appointment was subject to the approval of the Director of Education. The directorate of Education approved the appointment temporarily for the period 20th August, 1964 to 30th April, 1965 in the pay scale of Rs. 130-300. The appointment was approved for a short period because it was then considered by the Director of Education that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of a drawing teacher. The letter of appointment also stated that arrangements for a qualified teacher be made. The said appointment was extended from time to time. The final extension was upto 30th November, 1965. The scale of pay for a qualified drawing teacher is Rs. 160.00 , 300.00 . The petitioner represented against the non-continuation of his appointment as a teacher. On 2nd Feb. 1967 respondent No. 4 made a fresh offer to the petitioner as a drawing teacher grade III in the scale of Rs. 130-300. The petitioner accepted the appointment with effect from 3rd Feb. 1967. The petitioner, however, represented against his earlier termination of service and claimed that he was a qualified teacher and he was entitled to the appointment as a regular teacher in the scale of Rs. 160-300 with effect from 20th August, !964 on regular basis. The order further stated that the order terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 30th November, 1965 may be treated as cancelled. The order further proyided that the period 1st December, 1965 to 2nd February 1967 may. be treated as leave without pay. In other words, the petitioner was given comminuity, of service hut the period 1st December, 1965 to <PG>115</PG> 2nd February 1967 was treated as leave without pay. The petitioner represented against the order treating the period of his absence as leave without pay and he claimed that he should be treated on duty for the said period and he should also be paid his salary.