ZAITOON FATIMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Special Appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 25.9.1998 by which the learned single judge has dismissed the civil misc. writ petition no. 24348 of 1995, preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the order contained in the letter dated 6.5.1994 of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in which a reference was made to the Addl. Director of Education, Secondary U.P. Allahabad for appropriate action under section 16E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 (In short the 'Act') in respect of initial appointment by promotion of the appellant herein in C.T. Grade as well as her subsequent promotion in L.T. Grade and till then, the approval to the appellant's promotion to the post of Lecturer( Urdu) has been put on hold by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by the self same order.

(2.) We have heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, for the appellant, Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Ashok Khare for respondents no.5.

(3.) The facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the appellant was appointed Asstt. Teacher in the L.T.C. grade in Abdul Salam Girls Inter College Moradabad sometime in the year 1970. In the course of time she was promoted to the C. T. grade and later, to the L.T. grade in the year 1976. A vacancy in the post of lecturer (Urdu) was occasioned by the retirement of the Incumbent - Begum Jahan on 30.2.1993. The appellant who, according to the seniority-list, already published being the senior-most teacher in the L.T. grade, was promoted to the post of lecturer in Urdu and the relevant papers were sent to the Regional Inspectress of Girls School on 24.11.93 for approval qua the requirements of regulation 6(5) of Chapter 2 of the Regulations made under the Act. The 5th respondent who also happens to be the Asstt. Teacher in L.T. grade, preferred a representation staking her claim for promotion inter-alia on the premises that she happened to be the senior most teacher in L.T. grade and that the initial appointment by promotion of the appellant in C.T. grade and later, in the L.T. grade was invalid and she was not qualified for being promoted to the post of lecturer. The Regional Inspectress of Girls School, it seems issued notice to the parties to appear before her. On behalf of the college, service books, salary register, papers regarding pay fixation and other papers, were produced before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, but the authorised controller did not produce any material regarding appellant's pay-fixation for the period between 1.8.73 and 1.11.73 nor was any document produced showing approval to the appellant's promotion from J.T.C. to C.T. grade. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools came to the conclusion that there was no material vouching for pay fixation of the appellant in L.T. grade nor was there any material to be eloquent of the fact that the promotion of the appellant from J.T.C. to C.T. grade was approved by the then Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools Bareilly nor was there anything to manifest that her pay was fixed in C.T. grade with effect from 1.7.1970. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools being of the opinion that the services of the appellant in C.T. grade were not lent approval and that she had not passed L.T. or B.Ed and therefore, she was not qualified for the post of Asstt. Teacher in L.T. grade. Upon a consideration therefore, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools referred the matter to the Addl. Director of Education under section 16-E (10) of the Act. The reference was sought to be quashed in the writ petition. Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant was appointed to C.T. grade before Sec. 16(E) was supplanted by Sec. 14 of the U.P. Act 26 of 1975 and the Amending Act was not made to have retroactive effect and therefore, proceeded the submission, the proceedings under section 16 (E) (10) could not be invoked in aid to emasculate the appointment already made. The submission made by the learned counsel has no cutting edge. Section 16-E (10) empowers the Director in the case of appointment of teacher in an Institution to rescind such appointment and pass such consequential orders as may be necessary, on being satisfied that the appointment has been made in antagonism of the provisions of the Act. The provision being germane to the controversy is excerpted below.