KAUSHAL KISHORE VERMA Vs. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 12-9-1988 Annexure-6 whereby petitioner's temporary services from the post of lecturer in Chemistry in Hewett Polytechnic, Mahanagar, Lucknow opposite party No. 2 have been terminated. A perusal of the order shows that the services have been terminated on account of lack of approval from the Director of Technical Education.

(2.) ADVERTISEMENT inviting applications for the post in question was issued in August, 1986, a copy of which is Annexure-1. A perusal of the advertisement shows that one of the prescribed essential qualifications was 2 years minimum experience of teaching Intermediate or Diploma classes. The advertisement does not contain any provision for relaxation in this qualification. The petitioner along with two other candidates was interviewed by a Selection Committee whose report is Annexure-2. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner for the post in question and placed him at Serial no. 1. It placed Sri Vijay Anand Singh at Serial no. 2 and recommended his name to be placed in the waiting list. In its report, the Selection Committee has mentioned that none of the candidates who appeared before it possessed 2 years experience of teaching Intermediate or Diploma classes. It, therefore, recommended that candidates be selected on the basis of educational qualification and the requirement of experience may be waived. It appears that report of the Selection Committee was sent to the Director of Technical Education for approval but before any communication was received from the Director, appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the Management ; a copy of this appointment order is Annexure-3. In this order, it was specifically provided that in case approval of the Director of Technical Education was not issued, the petitioner's services will be terminated without any notice. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner joined the post. The Director of Technical Education, it appears, did not agree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee for waiver of the experience qualification and, therefore, by order dated 21-4-1987 his services were directed to be terminated with effect from 30-4-1987. The petitioner claims that against this order of termination, he preferred representation. Perhaps on the basis of this representation, the operation of the termination order dated 21-4-1987 was stayed by order dated 24-4-1987 Annexure-5. It was stated that the stay order shall remain operative till the receipt of the order of the Director of Technical Education or the Slate Government. Thereafter the impugned order of termination of service was passed on 12-9-1988, Annexure-6. As already indicated, in the order itself it is mentioned that the Director has not approved the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question.

(3.) FOR the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only meaning that can be assigned to the term "Shaikshik Anubhav" mentioned in the government order is teaching experience. The advertisement makes it explicit and leaves.no room for doubt. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess 2 years teaching experience. Accordingly, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed to the post in question.