RAM PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners challenging the aforesaid two grounds mentioned in the impugned order, contended that the provisions of Rules 1983 are not applicable with regard to appointment of a Part Time Teacher. With regard to second ground, it is contended that no selection has been made of any female teacher therefore, the second reason is also non-existent. LEARNED Counsel for the respondents refuting the submission of the learned Counsel for the petition ers, submitted that even though the 1983 Commission Rules are not applicable but there is prohibition for appointment of male teachers in girls institution. It has been further contended that appointment of the, petitioners was not made in-accordance with the relevant Government Orders regulating the service condi tions of Part Time Teacher hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any protec tion. He further submits that earlier Government Order issued in 1986 regulated the service conditions and since the petitioners' appointment was not made following the procedure prescribed under law, they cannot claim for any protection. It was further contended that those Part Time Teachers who have been appointed without following the procedure prescribed, the Management is fully competent to terminate their services. Certain allegations against the male teachers have also been made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Committee of Management,