MUNENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four posts of Assistant Teacher fell vacant in Prem Kumari Deshraj Singh Junior High School, Bhatauli, Budaun in the year 1992. For filling up the said vacancies, advertisement was issued after seeking permission from the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Budaun. After conclusion of the selection process, name of the petitioners was put in select list which was followed by an order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioners. They joined the Institution on 5.8.1992 and since then are discharging their duties in the said institution. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari granted approval for their appointment for one year i.e. for probation period vide order dated 30.10.1992. It is alleged that vide order dated 6.10.1994 services of the petitioners were regularized by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Petitioners continued to serve in the Institution thereafter. The said institution was enlisted for grant in aid vide G.O. dated [2.2.2012]1 as a result of which the salary of the staffs of the Institution is required to be paid by the Government and for the said purpose the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries ot Teachers and other Employees) Act 1978 was made applicable to the Institution. As per Rule 10 of the said Act 1978 the State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after the appointed day. On inspection, respondents found that the appointment of the petitioners was not in permanent character on the basis of an order passed by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari who had regularizes their services in the year 1994. It was contended that there was no provision for regularizarion of the services of the petitioner under the rules, therefore, the orders of the District Basic Education Officer do not confer any such right to the petitioners to claim salary. As such they are not entitled to receive any salary from the Government. This in nutshell the controversy involved in the present case.

(2.) On being granted recognition in the year 1984 the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules 1978 were made applicable to the institution. Rule 11 of Rules 1978 provides that on receipt of communication of approval in the management appointment order shall be issued in favour of the person on the basis of the advertisement. Rule 12 of Rules 1978 provides that the appointment of every Head-Master or assistant teacher as the case may of a recognized school, not being an appointment under Rule 20 shall be on probation of one year, which may be extended for a further period not exceeding one year. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 provides that in case the service of Head-Master or teacher of a recognized school are not terminated before the expiry of the period of the extended period of probation, as the case may be, he shall be deemed to have been automatically confirmed on the expiry of such period.

(3.) Undoubtedly, there is no dispute that the said rules are applicable to the petitioners. Initial appointment of the petitioners were made and they were put on probation for a period of one year. It is in the year 1994 petitioners' services were regularized. Argument raised by the respondents that there is no provision for regularization as such appointment of the petitioners is de-horse the rules.