KAMLA JOSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10th November, 1984, petitioner No.2 was appointed as Lecturer Mathematics and on 26th November, 1984, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer Sanskrit in Government Post Graduate College, Pithoragarh and Rudrapur respectively with condition that they shall be entitled to work respectively up to 20th November, 1984 and 20th December, 1984, during which period they shall be entitled to three casual leaves and remuneration of '700/- per month along with other allowances. It was indi ­cated that upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioners to abide by those terms, they shall be appointed. Ort 20th December, 1984, the Director, taking into the fact that appointments, thus, given have come to an end on 20th December, 1984, author ­ized grant of new appointments on same terms and conditions up to 30th April, 1985 in order to enable completion of the aca ­demic session. It was specifically mentioned that no extension would be given. By two orders respectively dated 4th February, 1985 and 26th February, 1985, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on similar terms up to 30th April, 1985. The said letters did not indicate that response to an advertisement resulted in those appointments, nor did they indicate that there was any selection or petitioners were selected. How petitioners came to know that such appointments are available, has not been indicated in the writ petition. While the said appointments were given, it was clearly indicated that no extension will be granted. It is not the case of the petitioners that subsequent thereto any other decision was taken by the Director for extension of their service or for giving them any new appointment. It is also not their contention that the Colleges in ques ­tion gave them any other appointments. Accordingly, for all practical purposes, it must be deemed that the petitioners stopped functioning as Lecturers of the Colleges in question subsequent to 1st May, 1985. In the present writ petition, the Colleges have not been arrayed as parties deliberately in order to prevent this Court from ascertain ­ing the facts pertaining to discharge of duty by the petitioners in the Colleges in ques ­tion after 1st May, 1985.

(2.) BE that as it may, on 14th May, 1979 the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts within the pur ­view of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 came into force. The said Rules applied to people who were directly appointed on ad hoc basis before 1st Janu ­ary, 1977 and was continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. On 8th September, 1984, Rule 9 was inserted in the said Rules, whereby and under, the provisions of the said Rules applied mutatis mutandis also to any per ­son directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st May, 1983 and continued in service as such on the date of commence ­ment of Rule 9 of the said Rules, i.e. on 8th September, 1984.

(3.) PETITIONERS and some others filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in 1989. On the said writ peti ­tion, an interim order was passed on 7th August, 1989, whereby it was directed that the process of selection for the posts held by the petitioners in the said writ petition shall continue but the final results will not be declared and the petitioners will be allowed to continue on the posts in question till the next listing of the case. In the ab ­sence of Colleges in question in the present writ petition, it is not possible to gather whether after the said order dated 7th Au ­gust, 1989 petitioners were permitted to discharge duties of Lecturers in the Colleges in question, and if so how they were per ­mitted to do so and on what basis.