PALI RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The question that arises for consideration in these writ peti tions is whether services of the petitioners who were appointed as untrained teachers, Junior High School in 1972 and have worked continuously since then, could be deemed to have come to an end after the Institution was upgraded and came on grants-in-aid list because they were not trained teachers on the date of their appointment even though they ac quired the necessary qualification and be came trained teachers during service with permission of the authorities either after up-gradation of the Institution or it's com ing on grants-in-aid list in 1978.

(2.) SHRI Krishan Vidyapeeth Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chirraiya Kot, Mau (in brief Institution), was granted recognition as Junior High School in 1971. On 10-3-1971 the State Govern ment issued an Order Clause 5 of which permitted appointment of untrained teachers in Junior High Schools subject to the condition that the appointee obtained training certificate within five years other wise he would be entitled to the initial salary only. The petitioners were ap pointed as permanent assistant teachers in the Institution after coming into force of this Order in 1971-72. All of them were untrained. Sri Pali Ram Yadav was inter mediate only. Others were graduate or post-graduate. The Institution was granted recognition in 1974, under Sec tion 7 of the U. P Intermediate Act, 1921 (in brief Act), to impart education to High School. But the maintenance grant was sanctioned in 1978. As a consequence of it the Institution came under the purview of U. P High Schools and Intermediate Col leges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (in brief Salaries Act ). Till 1978 there was no dis pute. But after the provisions of Salaries Act became applicable the salaries of petitioners was stopped. Sri Pali Ram Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 7068 of 1978, before this Court, in which on 8- 2-1979 a stay Order was passed directing payment of salary to the petitioner. In compliance of the Order the salary of the petitioner was paid and he continued. Bus it appeals as a result on filing of the writ petition the management referred the dispute about payment of his salary to the District In specter of Schools (in brief DIGS) who the his order dated 1-12-1980 held that the petitioner was entitled to trained LT grade. But this Order was recalled on 17-3-1981 and the petitioner was placed in CT grade. And payment of salary was slopped again. The petitioner consequently filed another Writ Petition No. 8743 of 1981 wherein this Court on 6-5-1983, again passed stay Order in favour of the petitioner and salary of the petitioner was paid from June, 1981 to February, 1987. On 4-3-1987 the stay orders passed in both the Writ Petition No. 7068 of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 8743 of 1981 were va cated and the petitions were decided on 12-3-1993, directing the Director of Education (in brief DE) to pass orders in accordance with law with regard to the grievance of the petitioner either himself or though his nominee within a period of three months. The petitioner along with the judgment dated 12-3-1993 made a rep resentation to the DE on 12-4-1993. He nominated Additional Director of Educa tion (Secondary), (in brief ADE) to decide the claim of the petitioner. The ADE called for a report from the DIOS, Mau who submitted his report on 14-12-1993 recommending that orders should be passed with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner. The report has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. In this report he held the management guilty for not taking steps for absorption of the petitioner under Chapter II, Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the Act. But the ADE rejected the claim of the petitioner on 18-2-1994. He held that on the date of appointment in 1972 the petitioner was only intermediate and un trained and his appointment was not ap proved, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed even in CT grade. And when the Institution was upgraded in 1974 then eleven posts were approved in LT grade and 12 in CT grade in 1975 but manage ment did not absorb the petitioner against it because he was working as unqualified and unapproved teacher. The ADE held that a teacher could be regularised under Regulation 4 of Chapter II as permanent teacher or tempi was qualified and non-absorption c justified.

(3.) I have heated Shri Ashok Khare learned Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Pettier No. 8168 and 8166 of 1994 and Shri Namwar Singh for Damodar Yadav in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8166 of 1994 and standing Counsel for the respondents. The earned Counsel argued that the petitioners having acquired train ing certificate and being graduate were entitled for LT grade and in any case their salaries could not be withheld as their ap pointment was made after 10-3-1971 in accordance with the Government Order permitting Junior High Schools to ap point untrained teachers permanently. The learned Counsel urged that the only restriction was that the untrained teacher was required to obtain training certificate within five years else he was to be paid his initial salary. The learned Counsel pointed out that two of the petitioners in the Writ No. 8166 of 1994 namely, Dhani Ram and Damodar Yadav having obtained their training certificate within five years much before the Institution was brought in the grants-in-aid list they were entitled for absorption in the High School and the remaining were entitled to continue and were entitled to be absorved as and when they obtained their training certificates. The learned Counsel further argued that there was no requirement of obtaining ap proval of the basis education officer at the time of their appointment. In any case Shri Khare argued that the petitioners having worked continuously for more than ten years and their appointment being in ac cordance with law the respondents were not justified in withholding their salary. The learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned orders.