RAM SARAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. P. Mehrotra, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to question an advertisement which has been made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board, Allahabad, whereby the Commission has invited applications for the post at a Principal in a Higher Secondary Institution. A true copy of the relevant advertisement is Annexure-7 to the petition. The facts, in brief are these : The petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the Institution in question on ad hoc basis. The Annexure-1 is a copy of the relevant resolution passed by the management committee of the institution in its meeting held on 15th Sept. ; 1976. He was the senior most teacher and, accordingly, he was selected for the post in question. The D. I. O. S. granted his approval by Annexure-3 to the petition. It seems that some dispute arose between the petitioner and the Committee of Management some time in 1978 and he was paid his salary till June, 1978. Thereafter, the Committee of Management began to treat one Sobranlal Yadav as the acting Principal of the institution. It seems that the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education Region No. VI and the latter by his order dated Dec. 5, 1981 directed the DIOS to see that the charge of the acting Principal was given to the petitioner, and further that the petitioner should be given the salary due to him. A true copy of the said order is Annexure-5 to the petition. It has not been mentioned in the petition but the learned Counsel for the petitioner informed us that in compliance with the aforesaid Order dated 5th Dec. , 1981 the D. I. O. S. passed an Order dated 8th Dec. , 1981 whereby the Manager of the Institution in question was directed to see that the charge of the acting Principal was handed over to the petitioner and that he was paid the arrears of his salary. Against the aforesaid Order the Committee of Management filed a Writ Petition No. 5978 of 1981 in the Lucknow Bench of this Court and in para 7 of the petition it is stated that the same is still pending. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the operation of the aforesaid order of the D. I. O. S. dated 8th Dec. ; 1981 has been stayed by the said writ petition. Therefore, it seems that the present position is that the petitioner is not acting as the ad hoc Principal of the institution and Sri Sorban Lat Yadav is presently acting as the ad hoc principal.

(2.) AFTER the appointment of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board; the said body has begun to function in accordance with the provisions, inter alia, contained in Sections 9, 10 and 11 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1977. The Management notified the vacancy of the post of Principal in the Institution to the said Commission and the latter accordingly issued the advertisement in question (Annexure-7 to the petition) inviting applications for the said post of Principal of the said College.

(3.) NOW when Section 16-GG starts by laying down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF, appointment of every teacher of an Institution appointed during a certain period shall stand regularised, it is not possible to contend that the expression "teacher" should include the head of the Institution. In the context, in which this section namely Section 16-GG has been placed, in the sequence in which this section has been enacted, namely, with the preceding Secs. 16-E, 16-F, and 16-FF and further, when an explicit reference has been made to the said three sections and it has been laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in the said three sections, the appointment of a teacher made between a certain specified period shall stand regularised, then according in the well known rules of interpretation, the expression, teacher must be given the same interpretation as is to be given in the preceding three sections. It is not possible to argue that while in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16- FF the expression teacher will not include the head of the institution, in Section 16-GG the expression 'teacher' should include the head of the institution. We have already pointed out that the said Act in its aforesaid section has maintained a classification so far as the teachers are concerned as distinguished from the heads of the institutions. It is permissible to conclude that the said classification is still continuing in the instant section also namely Section 16-GG. Its operation is confined only to teachers and not to the heads of the Institution. We do not find anything illegal or irrational in having such a distinction between the teachers and the Principals. The Division Bench referred to above has referred to certain aspects of the matter and we express our agreement with the approach of the said Division Bench on this point.