COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KRISHAK INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE AND ANOTHER Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, Committee of Management, Krishak Intermediate College, Gaur, Basti was permitted to run classes for Intermediate Education in subject Agriculture by the respondents vide order dated 27th November, 1984. The order has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. This order further required that for running XIth Class permission should be obtained from District Inspector of Schools within two years and who shall grant permission after being satisfied that all the requirements for running such classes have been complied with as per standard and duly qualified teachers are appointed for teaching students. The permission was also granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 14th March, 1985. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a lecturer for teaching agriculture to the intermediate classes on 12th September, 1985 and it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 is continuing since then. However, no salary has been paid by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appointment of petitioner No. 2 is on ad -hoc basis as in view of the provisions of Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1981, regular appointment could be made only through the Commission. From the order of appointment (Annexure No. 3). The nature of appointment is not clear. It has been alleged that they moved, several applications thereafter before the respondents and have prayed for sanctioning of the two posts of lecturers for the agriculture classes. The grievance of the petitioner is that no sanction has been granted though since, 1985, about 80 students are studying in agriculture classes and the petitioner No. 2 is working as lecturer since then but he has not been paid salary. This writ petition has been filed for direction to respondents to sanction the two posts of lecturer and to pay salary to petitioner No. 2. The learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file a counter affidavit by the order dated 28th April, 1989 when the writ petition was filed. By the order dated 10th August, 1990, further time was granted to file the counter affidavit. Lastly, on 25th October, 1990 by a stop order two weeks' time was granted to the respondents for filing the counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has yet been filed in spite of the aforesaid orders passed by the Court. It is a very sad situation. The respondents are not expected to be so careless in respect of the matter of education where interest of large number of students is involved. From the uncontroverted allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that large number of students are attending agriculture classes and petitioner No. 2 is serving in the institution without payment of salary, as no counter affidavit has been filed inspite of stop order, I have no option but to proceed further with the case and to decide the same on basis of the facts on record.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. It appears that petitioners made representations before the authorities on 2.6.85 (Annexure No. IV to the writ petition), gave reminder on 6.12.88 (Annexure No. V) and also a letter dated 5.10.88 (Annexure No. VI). However, in all these applications petitioners were praying for sanctioning of two posts of lecturer for teaching subject agriculture. In my opinion petitioner were labouring under same misapprehension. Sanction or creation of posts of teachers was clearly mentioned in order dated 27.11.1984, (Annexure No. 1) by which the petitioner No. 1 was permitted to run agriculture classes. This order contained certain general conditions and condition No. 4 is very relevant for the controversy involved in this case. The condition No. 4 is being reproduced below.

(3.) SECOND relief sought in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to pay salary to petitioner No. 2. As it has already been held that by virtue of order dated 27.11.1964 teacher could be appointed for teaching students of agriculture classes the appointment of petitioner No. 2 could be made on post under the aforesaid order. However, in none of the application moved by the petitioners, prayer for payment of salary has been made, and there is no order on record to show that petitioner ever approached respondents for the payment of salary of petitioner and it has been refused. However, as it has been alleged in the writ petition that petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post by order dated 12.9.1985 (Annexure No. 3) he may be working on post and if so he shall be entitled for the salary. In the circumstances it shall be in the interest of justice that respondent No. 3 may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation of petitioner No. 2 for payment of salary within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation is filed before him by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.