INDRA GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD petitioner's counsel and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Dhruv Narain and Sri B.K. Narain appearing for respondent No. 4, the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management supports the case of the petitioner. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(2.) IN the institution in question i.e. Ram Swaroop Janta Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Acheja, Hapur, district Ghaziabad which is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, one Shri D.D. Sharma was working as Principal and on his retirement a substantive vacancy arose. Since no regular selection was made in the said vacancy through the agency of the Secondary Education Service Commission/Regional Selection Board, the Committee of Management appointed Sri Ajai Kumar Sharma on ad -hoc basis on the post of Principal of the institution. The said appointment was approved by the D.I.O.S. by his order dated 4/5 February, 1993. As a consequence of the aforesaid promotion, a short term vacancy came into existence on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the institution. The Management invited applications for making ad -hoc appointment against the said vacancy and after following procedure appointed the petitioner on ad -hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the said institution. The petitioner joined the post on 1.2.1993 and since then she is working in the said institution on the said post. All papers pertaining to the ad -hoc appointment of the petitioner were sent by the Management to the D.I.O.S. for the purposes of approval and payment of salary. However, the D.I.O.S. refused to grant approval by his order dated 17.4.1993 solely on the ground that since Sri Ajai Kumar Sharma was teaching English subject to class -8, the petitioner could not be appointed on the said post as she was not qualified to be appointed as a teacher for teaching English subject. The Manager of the institution by his letter dated 19.4.1993 sent a communication to the D.I.O.S. pointing out that English subject in the institution was continued to be taught by Ajai Kumar Sharma while holding the post of Principal and that there was requirement in the institution for teaching Home Science, Hindi and Sanskrit subjects and for teaching such subjects the petitioner had been appointed and she is qualified for the same. However no decision has been taken by the D.I.O.S. on the said communication of the Committee of Management dated 19.4.1993.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying upon Division Bench decisions in the cases of B.P. Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others : 1985 (11) ALR (Sum.) 114 : 1985 UPLBEC 669 and Pati Ram Pal v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1993 (21) ALR 298, argued that provisions of Regulation 6(1) of Chapter -II of Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act cannot be interpreted to mean that appointment could be made only for teaching the subject which was being taught by the teacher whose vacancy is to be fulfilled. It was held in those cases that the expression "for teaching the subject in which the teacher ............................................... in the L.T. Grade is required" cannot be read as for teaching the subject which was being taught by the teacher whose vacancy is to be fulfilled." The Committee of Management is entitled to promote such teacher to the vacancy caused in L.T. Grade who is required to teach the subject which the Committee of Management thinks necessary in the interest of institution.