PREM DUTT CHAMOLI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in these two appeals directed against the common judgment of a learned single Judge rendered in three connected writ petitions is whether the State Government's order dated 6th May, 1982 which provides for retention in service for two years of teachers who have been awarded National or State level awards after attaining the age of superannuation, creates a legally enforceable right in such teachers.

(2.) IT is undisputed that both the appellants were holding the post of Principal in their respective Colleges when in the year 1992 they were awarded 'President's Teacher award'. They were due to retire on 30th June, 1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Committee of Management of their respective Colleges recommended to the State Government that they may be granted two years extension in terms of Government order dated 6th May, 1982. The State Government considered the matter in accordance with, the procedure prescribed in Government order dated 23rd Oct, 1991 and denied extension of service to the appellants by order dated 8th July, 1993. This is the order which was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants before the learned single Judge. The learned single judge held that the State Government's order did not create legally enforceable right in a teacher to claim continuance in service. In taking this view the learned Single Judge has relied upon :- 1. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Jagmohan Lal, AIR 1989 SC 75. 2. Smt. Kumud Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 (1) UP LB EC 415 (DB).

(3.) FROM the above Government Order it appears that the scheme of granting extension in service for two years after attainment of the age of superannuation was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh upto 1977 and this scheme was limited to those teachers who had won state level awards. This scheme was abandoned in the year 1978 on the directions of the Central Government. In paragraph 1 of the Government Order it is mentioned that on reconsideration and after examination of legal implications it has been advised that with a view to ensure qualitative development of education it will be in public interest in the services of such teachers remain available to educational institutions for some time more, provided they are physically and mentally fit. This is the reason for the decision contained in paragraph 2 of the Government Order. The decision serves public purpose. The public purpose is qualitative development of education. The decision does not serve the interest of an individual. It does not seek to give a second award to the award winner in the shape of extension in service by two years.