COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF SANATAN DHARM INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE THROUGH ITS MANAGER Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus to opposite party No. 1 District Inspector of Sphools Mainpuri to pay salary of Tulsi Ram Yadav and Suraj Pal Singh from 1st July 1984 onwards, are that on death of one Mahesh Singh Yadav on 18.8.1982, who was a teacher in L.T. grade in the college, the Management intimated the District Inspector of Schools on 9.9.1982 that a vacancy has arisen in L.T. grade which may be permitted to be filled by ad hoc appointment of the teacher mentioned in the letter sent by the Management. Consequently Tulsi Ram Yadav, who was already working in C.T. grade, was promoted in L.T. grade in place of Mahesh Singh Yadav and on falling a vacancy due to promotion of Tulsi Ram Yadav, Suraj Pal Singh was appointed in C.T. grade. The promotion and appointment thus made were approved by the Inspector of Schools. In the appointment letters issued both to Sri Yadav and Sri Singh, it was mentioned that their appointments were being made under Removal of Difficulties Order and that it shall come to an end immediately when a regular candidate, selected by the Commission, takes over. Since the date of appointment Sri Yadav and Sri Singh have been continuing and were being paid salary till July 1984, when payment of salary was stopped. As the efforts of the teachers did not succeed and the Uistrist Inspector of Schools was not willing to release the grant in respect of these teachers, the Committee of Management filed this writ petition in November 1984. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools the reason for non -payment of salary has been disclosed. In paragraph 6 it is stated: "Since the promotion as well as the appointment of these persons is after 1.11.1982 hence they are governed Under Sec. 18 of the Act and will automatically cease the effect after 30.6.1984. The Committee of Management has made no proposal after July, 1984. Hence the payment of salary to Sri Tulsi Ram in L.T. grade and Sri Suraj Pal Singh in C.T. grade is not possible.

(2.) From what has been narrated above, it is apparent that no appointment has yet been made by the Commission. It is further not disputed that the Committee of Management is not against either of these teachers; rather it has come to this Court seeking redress on behalf of the teachers. The only reason for not paying the salary by the Inspector of Schools is that the appointment of these teachers could not be continued after 30th July. Prima facie, the reason disclosed in the counter affidavit appears to be in line with Sec. 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982). The Sec. so far as is relevant is quoted as under:

(3.) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have elect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post.