STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SATYA BAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant special appeal, the State Government has assailed the order passed by this court on 01.03.2006, disposing of Writ Petition No. 454 of 2005 (S/S). In its aforesaid decision, this court had arrived at the conclusion, that the appointment of Satya Bahar (respondent No. 1 herein), was in conformity with the rules and regulations prescribed, and that, his claim for wages was liable to be accepted. It is, therefore that the learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 01.03.2006 directed the State Government to release wages to respondent No. 1 Satya Bahar.

(2.) IT is necessary before embarking upon the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants to delineate the factual background of the controversy. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya is an aided institution under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As a consequence of promotion of four Assistant Teachers to the post of ad hoc Lecturers, four short term vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Teachers arose at the Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya. To fill up these four short term vacancies on ad hoc basis, the Management of the college issued an advertisement dated 09.10.1996. Respondent No. 1 was one of the applicants, who responded to the aforesaid advertisement. He also participated in the process of selection, before the selection committee, constituted by the management committee, of the college. In the process of selection, respondent No. 1 was one of the selected candidates for appointment, against one of the four short term vacancies, which were sought to be filled up on ad hoc basis. The proceedings of the selection committee, were placed before the management committee, of the college. Consequent upon the approval of the proceedings of the selection committee, the management committee, appointed respondent No. 1, as a short term ad hoc Assistant Teacher in the L.T. grade of Rs. 1400 -2300. Accordingly, the respondent was issued an appointment letter dated 23.10.1996. In furtherance of the receipt of the aforesaid appointment letter, respondent No. 1 assumed charge of the post of short term ad hoc Assistant Teacher in the L.T. grade, at the aforesaid college on 01.11.1996.

(3.) THE pleadings before the writ court as well as in the instant special appeal reveal that after assuming charge on 01.11.1996, the respondent has rendered uninterrupted service, as a short term ad hoc Assistant Teacher till date. Despite the fact, that he was rendering service with the respondent college, he was not paid any salary/wages. Accordingly, he approached the High Court at Allahabad by filing Writ Petition No. 2049 of 1997. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.01.1997, requiring the appellants to take a final decision on the representation submitted by respondent No. 1 (Satya Bahar) within two months. Since the order dated 17.01.1997 was not complied with by the appellants, respondent No. 1 (Satya Bahar) filed yet another Writ Petition bearing No. 3126 of 2001 (S/S) before this court. The same was disposed of on 31.12.2003, whereupon the representation submitted by respondent Satya Bahar was disposed of by the appellants, vide an order dated 17.05.2004. As per the order dated 17.05.2004 respondent Satya Bahar was not entitled to any salary/wages on account of the fact, that his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the L.T. grade, was not in conformity with law. The disclosure of the infirmity in the process of appointment of respondent Satya Bahar, emerges from the averments made in paragraph -9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants before this court during the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 454 of 2005 (S/S). In paragraph -9, it was asserted that prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar, before filling up of teaching posts on short term ad -hoc basis, was a pre -requisite; and since no such prior permission was sought by the management of Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya, from the District Inspector of Schools Haridwar, the selection and appointment of the respondent Satya Bahar, was not in conformity with law.