PRABHAWATI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Sushila Devi Rajendra Lal Memorial Nav Bharat Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Titauli, District Muzaffarnagar is a recognized educational institution and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said institution was initially recognized upto class VIIth standard. The petitioner claims that she was appointed by means of appointment letter dated 2nd of December, 1986 as a teacher in the pay-scale of Rs. 450-720 upto 20th of May, 1987. The services of the petitioner were terminated by letter dated 8th of May, 1989 w. e. f. 15th of May, 1985 issued by the Manager of the institution (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). This order of termination was challenged in writ petition No. Nil of 1989 and the operation of the said order was stayed by way of interim measure till a regularly selected candidate or reserve pool teacher becomes available for appointment on the post or services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law, whichever is earlier. Copy of the said interim order dated 23rd of May, 1989 has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The Manager of the institution subsequently by order dated 9th of June, 1990 dismissed the services of petitioner as the same was no longer required and offered one month's salary in lieu of notice. Challenging the legality and validity of the said order the present writ petition has been filed. The contention of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with as till date no duly selected candidate has been recommended nor a reserve pool teacher has become available for appointment on the post in question. In the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner is still holding the post. An interim order was passed by this Court to the effect that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with in case a regularly selected candidate has not joined the post or a reserve pool teacher has not been appointed.

(2.) TWO sets of counter-affidavit have been filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the institution, Shri Nepal Singh, the Manager of the Committee of Management has taken stand that the institution is not governed by the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act and that the petitioner has committed perjury in as much as the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Annexure 3, a letter purporting to have been issued from the office of the District Inspector of Schools addressed to the Manager dated 28th of August, 1987 is a forged and fictitious document, according to the said respondent. The further defence is that salary was paid to the petitioner by the Management from its own fund. The resignation of Shri Satyaveer Singh, in whose vacancy the petitioner claims that she was appointed was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the petitioner was appointed without following the prescribed procedure. The procedure prescribed for appointment of teacher by the Removal of Difficulties Order was not followed in the case of petitioner. The pith and substance is that petitioner's appointment dehors the rule governing the selection and appointment and was not on a sanctioned post. Salary was being paid to the petitioner by Committee of Management and as such by means of a writ petition no relief can be claimed against the Committee of Management which is not a statutory body.

(3.) FROM the above discussion, it emerges that the petitioner has filed a letter dated 28-8-1987 which is a forged and fabricated document according to both the respondents. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 stating that no such letter was issued from the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar cannot lightly be disbelieved. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as she has filed a forged and fabricated document. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel as well as the Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this very ground as the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.