STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ISHWAR SAHAI PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Ishwar Sahai Pathak and Rakesh Singh restraining the defendants from terminating the services of the plaintiffs illegally and from interfering in the plaintiffs' working as Assistant Teachers in Jagatpur Inter College and for regular payment of salary of Assistant Teacher and for arrears of salary from the date of their appointment. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed. This second appeal has been filed by the State of U.P., District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and the Accounts Officer of the Office of District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi who were defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Jagatpur Inter College, Rohania, Varanasi is a recognised aided institution and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the institution.

(3.) The plaintiffs' case is that Bhagelu Singh and Girja Singh, Assistant Teachers in the institution were promoted and the promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and consequently two vacancies arose on the post of Assistant Teachers; that the Management intimated the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.4.1995 but neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the Service Commission made any appointment against these vacancies on account of which teaching was suffering and as such the Management made an advertisement for appointment of two teachers under Section 18 of the Act and also constituted a Selection Committee which held interviews and the names of the plaintiffs who were selected were recommended for ad hoc appointment to the post of L.T. Grade Assistant Teachers. On 8.7.1995 the Committee of Management passed a resolution approving the selection and consequently on 10.7.1995 appointment letter was issued to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs joined, it was also alleged that although the papers were sent by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools neither approved nor disapproved the appointment of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs' appointment would be deemed to have been approved. It was also alleged that on 2.2.1996 the Manager threatened to terminate the services of the plaintiffs and stopped taking work from them. Consequently the suit was filed.