PRAKASHWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner in the instant case was appointed as Assistant Teacher (B.T.C.) in Shri Krishak Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya Bahanpur, District Aligarh by means of the order dated 25.2.1986 issued under the authority of Manager. Subsequently, the matter was referred for approval to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and according to the averments made in the writ petition, the approval was accorded and the petitioner was paid salary for the period between 25.2.1986 and 20.5.1986. The payment of salary was withheld thereafter and the matter was again referred to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools for approval which was declined by means of an order dated 24.2.1987. Consequently, the services of the petitioner were also terminated. In the above backdrop, the present petition has been preferred for twin reliefs of quashing the impugned order dated 24.2.1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School and the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the Committee of Management thereby terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) IT would appear from the perusal of the record that the only ground which prevailed with the Regional Inspectress of Girls School in declining approval was the provision contained in the U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985 from which the aforesaid authority drew inference that the petitioner could not be appointed on substantive post.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel argued that even if it be assumed that there was no reserve pool teachers, the post being vacant could be filled in by proper selection. In vindication of his argument that the selection made was illegal, the learned standing counsel has not adverted attention to any documentary evidence to shore up his contention. On the contrary, it would transpire from perusal of the impugned order refusing approval that refusal was actuated by Ordinance 2212 of 1985 and in quintessence, it follows from the said order that refusal had its basis in the provisions of U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985 and the Regional Inspectress did not record any other reason in relation to the validity of the selection of the petitioner. In view of the fact that there was no reserve pool candidate and upon regard being had that U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 cannot be invoked in aid for application to appointment of B.T.C. Grade Teacher and also in view of the fact that it has not been successfully established that the appointment of petitioner suffered from any illegality permeating her selection and appointment apparent on the face of record, I converge to the conclusion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be quashed.