RADHEY SHYEM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathnr, J. This Special Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated April 7, 1995 of the learned Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 6645 of 1995 filed by the appellants.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to mention the relevant facts. A large number of posts of Assistant Teachers in Government Colleges in the State were lying vacant as regular selection could not be made by the Commission. Since teaching in the College was being severally affected, a Government Order was issued on July 15, 1989 directing that ad hoc appointment be made in order to fill in the vacancies. It was mentioned that the aforesaid ad hoc appointments will only be for a period of one year or till a regularly selected candidate joined the post whichever contingency took place earlier. IN pursuance of the Government Order, the Director of Education issued an advertisement in August, 1986 for making a selection on the post of Assistant Teacher and it was mentioned therein that the appointment will come to an end on May 20, 1990 or when a regularly selected candidate joins the post, whichever contingency occurred earlier. It appears that appellants Radhey Shyam and Pradeep Kumar were selected and an appointment order appointing them as Assistant Teacher was issued in January, 1991. IN the appoint ment order, it was clearly mentioned that the same was purely temporary and would come to an automatic end on May 14, 1991, or could be terminated even before that date by one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. One Manjuvati, who had also been appointed in accordance with the same Government Order dated July 15, 1989 filed Writ Petition No. 14794 of 1991- Manjuvati, v. State of U. P. , challenging the action of the respondent in not permitting her to work as Assistant Teacher after May 20, 1991. It is noteworthy that a similar condition had been mentioned in her appointment order namely, that her appointment would come to an automatic end on May 20, 1991. The writ petition was allowed on July 13, 1991 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows :- "for the reasons stated above this writ petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue on the post as teacher until a candidate duly selected and recommended joins the post and shall be entitled to get all benefits like regular teacher including back wages, if any". While allowing the writ petition, the court issued a general direction that all such teachers who had been appointed on ad hoc basis in pursuance of the Government Order dated July 15, 1989 shall be allowed to continue on their posts on which they were appointed and shall be entitled to the same benefits as that of Manjuvati, who had filed the writ petition. The judgment of this court is reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 980. It is admitted position that the judgment and order, dated July 13, 1991 of this Court became final and binding between the parties as the same was not challenged by filing any appeal. The appellants who had also been appointed as ad hoc teacher in pursuance of the same Government Order also got the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of Manjuvati (supra), and continued to work as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis in a Government College,

(3.) THE principal submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellants is that in terms of the order passed by this Court on July 13, 1991 in the case of Manjuvati (supra), which is binding upon the parties, the appellants are entitled to continue on the posts as teacher until a candidate duly selected and recommended joins the post and as in the pre sent case no proper selection has been made, they are entitled to continue as Assistant Teachers and the order passed by the Authorities terminating their services is illegal. It is submitted that the Selection Board had merely invited the application for the post of Assistant Teacher by issuing an advertisement on May 23, 1992 but on account of amendment to U. P. Sub-ordinase Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1933 by the First Amendment on November 6, 1992 the procedure for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teacher was drastically changed and it was provided that such appointments shall be made on the basis of a selection conducted by the Regional Selection Committee. It has been further submitted that the State Government having issued a Notification on February IS, 1993 withdrawing the post of Assistant Teacher from the purview of the Selection Board, the Selection made by the Board and the result declared by it on January 22, 1995 was without any authority of law and thus the candidate selected by the Board cannot be held to be 'duly selected and recommended* and consequently the appellants are entitled to continue. THE question to be considered is whether it is open to the appellants to challenge the selection made by the Selection Board and if so whether on account of the Notifica tion issued by the State Government on February 15, 1993 withdrawing the post of Assistant Teacher from the purview of the Selection Board, the Selection made by the Board, result whereof was declared on January 22, 1995, has become illegal.