DROPAD MITTAL Vs. MANDALIYA BALIKA VIDYALAYA NARIKSHIKA PRATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions, mentioned above, have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by various teachers alleged to have been appointed on ad hoc basis in different Institutions of the State with a prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioners from the date of their appointments. The Petitioners have claimed payment of salaries under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971). In the case of Ram Lakhan Tripathi v. The District Inspector of Schools he has claimed his salary of lecturer on the ground that he was a seniormost L.T. Grade teacher of the institution and was promoted by the committee of management on the post of Lecturer in Saaslerit against 50% quota.

(2.) SINCE the questions involved in all the writ petitions are similar and common, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each case. In our opinion in these petitions two questions arise for determination which are as under:

(3.) AFTER the enforcement of Act No. 24 of 1971, there is no doubt that the hardships, miseries and the exploitation of teachers did not completely evaporate but it has been reduced to a considerable degrte. Another Act namely Act No. 5 of 1982 was enacted for the purposes of appointment of teachers in the Higher Secondary institutions and a commission known as Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission was established under Section 3 of the said Act. However, at the moment, we are not concerned with the other provisions except Section 18 which reads a:; under :