PREM NARAIN AVASTHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978). Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by an Ordinance bearing the same title but the number 22 of 1978. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978 had been enforced on 24 -6 -1978 and Ordinance No. 22 of 1978 was enforced retrospectively with effect from 24 -6 -1978. Certain teachers were appointed in High School and Intermediate Colleges in pursuance of the provisions contained in Ordinance Not; 10 and 22 of 1978. The validity of the latter Ordinance was challenged before this Court by Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh. A Division Bench of this Court held the Ordinance to be ultra vires and invalid. In consequence of this decision orders were passed on 21 -5 -1979 by the State Government requiring termination of services of the teachers appointed under the said Ordinances. For the implementation of the State Government's order the Additional Director of Education issued an order on 29 -5 -1979. Thereafter the Committees of Managements of the concerned institutions passed orders for termination of services of teachers appointed under the said Ordinances. The present petitions have been directed against this termination of services. While the matter was pending in this Court an appeal was preferred before their Lordships of the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court whereby the Ordinances were held to be ultra vires. Certain teachers whose services were sought to be terminated through the order dated 21 -5 -1979 also approached their Lordships of the Supreme Court through petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The appeals and the writ petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment dated 27 -7 -1984. The judgment of their Lordships is reported in 1984 Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984 ALJ 931. Through this judgment their Lordships held that the Ordinances were valid. As a consequence their Lordships further held that the termination of services of the teachers appointed under the Ordinances was invalid. In paragraph -51 of the judgment their Lordships made the following observations 2 -

(2.) WE direct that each of the reserve pool teachers who had already been appointed and was continuing in service by reason of the stay orders given either by the Allahabad High Court or by this Court is entitled to continue in service and is entitled to be confirmed in the post to which he or she was appointed with effect from the date on which he or she would have been confirmed in the normal and usual course.

(3.) THIS direction will apply to those reserve pool teachers whose services terminated and who had not filed any writ petition or who had filed a writ petition but had not succeeded in obtaining a stay order, and to those reserve pool teachers who had not been appointed in view of the interim orders passed by the High Court and thereafter by reason of the judgment of the High Court in the Sangh's case and who have not filed any writ petition.