(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner was, during a certain period, the commencement and the length of which is in dispute, employed as a teacher of Mathematics in Tulsi Das Intermediate College, Gorakhpur. According to the admitted case of the parties, in the issue of "Dainik Jagran" dated 11-9-1976, an advertisement appeared, calling for applications to fill in a number of teaching posts m the institution. Copy of the advertisement has been filed as Annexure "1" to the counter-affidavit filed by the principal of the college, Sri Ganga Saran Pandey, on behalf of Authorised Controller thereof.
(2.) According to advertisement, two Science Teachers were needed with Mathematics as one of their subjects. The advertisement disclosed that the posts mentioned therein were to be filled in for a period of six months and the appointments were to be made on a temporary basis. The applicants were required to send their applications by 20-9-1975, and to appear for interview on 21-9-1975 at 10 a. m. at the College. The petitioner claims that in response to the advertisement, he applied for appointment for any one of the two posts of Teachers of Science with Mathematics as a subject, appeared for an interview before a Selection Committee on 21-9-1975 and having been duly selected by the Selection Committee, was appointed as one of the two Teachers in Mathematics at the College with effect from 1-10-1975.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the Principal of the College was interested in the appointment of Prem Krishna Shukla and consequently in disregard of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and the directions of then an Authorised Controller of the College, while seeking approval of the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of the selected teachers, omitted from the list the petitioners name and instead entered the name of Prem Krishna Shukla. It is alleged that though the petitioner had joined service of the College as a Teacher on 1-10-1975, the Principal of the College did not allow him to sign the attendance Register and told him that after approval to his appointment had been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, he would be allowed to sign the register with back dates. The petitioner asserts that he continued to serve the institution throughout till 30 6 1976 but when he appeared to join the institution on its reopening after the summer vacation on 8-7-76 he was prevented from doing so by the Principal of the College, even though he was legally continuing in the service of the institution. Several representations were made by the petitioner to different authorised Controllers, who were looking after the management of the College as also to the District Inspector of Schools.