SUDHA CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri S. S. Sharma and Enakshi Sharma learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) IN this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 32-4-1997 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), V Region, Varanasi and further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly along with arrears. The case was heard by this Court several times and on 19-10-2001 this Court has passed order which reads as below: "smt. Sudha Chaturvedi has appeared in person. Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel, is also present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one has appeared for Committee of Management. This Court had granted time to learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit vide its order dated 8th May, 1997 but no counter affidavit has been filed so far. The Management has filed a counter affidavit which supports the claim of the petitioner. This Court has also passed an order on 6-12-1999 directing the District INspector of Schools to reconsider the grant of approval. The petitioner has filed a supplementary counter affidavit today annexing copy of the order dated 2-11-2000 passed by the District INspector of Schools rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 23rd April, 1997. Petitioner had claimed her appointment as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher L. T. grade in short term vacancy which arose due to promotion of Smt. Veena Mishra on the post of Principal. The Deputy Director of Education by impugned order has refused to pay salary to the petitioner only on the ground that there was ban on appointment at the time when the petitioner was appointed. Petitioner has claimed her appointment on short-term vacancy on 15-2-1996. On 15-2-1996 there was no ban on ad-hoc appointment on short-term vacancy. IN the order passed by Deputy Director of Education which is impugned in the writ petition, it is said that petitioner joined and is working. This Court in Mukesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 AWC 556, has already held that procedure for appointment on short-term vacancy was the same which was there earlier to 14th July, 1992. IN view of the above, operation of the order dated 23rd April, 1997 of the Deputy Director of Education (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) is stayed and the respondents are directed to pay current salary to the petitioner as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher in Adarsh Kanya INtermediate College, Sikhar, Mirzapur. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed a month's further time to file a counter affidavit. List thereafter. "

(3.) IN view of the above observations the order dated 23-4-1997 (Annexure-14) is set aside. The petitioner's appointment was made and she is continuously working as a Assistant Teacher L. T. grade in the said college. She has to be paid salary as payable to her by the month of March, 2003 and the arrears of the salary from the date of her appointment i. e. 16-2-1996 has to be paid to the petitioner within six months from the date of production of the copy of this order to the Deputy INspector of Schools. However it is expected that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board has to expedite the appointment of the Principal of the said college. No order as to cost Writ Petition is allowed. .