RAJNI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner her salary by month to month including all arrears from 16th August. 1991. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that Bhartiya Municipal Girls inter College, Chandausi, district Moradabad, is a recognised institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. On retirement of Smt. Gyanwati Devi Gupta on 30.6.1990, a substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer Sanskrit came into existence. The committee of management intimated : the vacancy on 29.6.1990 to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission through Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools for filling up the post on ad hoc basis. The Regional Inspectress of Girls School gave permission to the committee of management to fill up the post on ad hoc basis. The Management advertised the vacancy in one news paper, namely, Rangeela Times' on 22.6.1991. The Selection Committee constituted by the committee' of management made selection and selected the petitioner for ad hoc appointment. Petitioner has stated that the appointment order dated 14.8.1991 was issued by the committee of management. In pursuance of which she joined on 16.8.1991 and is claiming that she is working since then. The management sent relevant papers to the Regional Inspectress of Girls School vide letter dated 9.9.1991. The petitioner was not paid her salary hence she filed the present writ petition. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School and the Management. Regional Inspectress of Girls School in her counter-affidavit admitted that the vacancy arose on 30.6.1990. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the ban on appointment was imposed by the State Government vide telex dated 29.6.1991. Government order dated 17.7.1991. Government order dated 30.7.1991 and letter of the Director of Education dated 31.8.1991. It was stated that on account of the ban imposed by the State Government, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved. It was stated that the proceedings adopted by them was collusive and the management is responsible for the payment of her salary. The Management has also stated that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 14.8.1991 and she was permitted to join on 16.8.1991. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been stated that the appointment was made with the permission of the Regional Inspectress of Girls School. The ban imposed by the State Government was quashed by this Court in the case of Prabhawati Dikshit v. Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Ayog and another, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 582. Petitioner has stated that the Regional Inspectress of Girls School was not justified In withholding the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary.

(2.) Sri Manish Goel appearing for the petitioner raised following submissions :

(3.) With regard to first submission of the counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noted that the State Government imposed the ban on all appointments vide telex dated 29.6.1991. The radiogram is extracted below :