Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have joined together to challenge the order dated 23rd March, 2007 and the consequential communication of the Basic Education Officer of the same date, Annexures 4 and 5 respectively to contend that their appointments were valid and, therefore, there is no occasion to stop the payment of salary of the petitioners. It is urged that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the orders passed by the Basic Education Officer on 24.10.1986, 14.5.1987 and 19.9.1987 to contend that it is on the strength of the said orders that the authorities proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioners and issued orders for payment of salary. He submits that the said payment is in accordance with the Government Order dated 23rd March, 2007.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders categorically records that there was no provision for regularization of the services of the petitioners and, therefore, the orders of the Basic Education Officer do not confer any such right to the petitioners to claim salary. It is in the said context that the salary has been stopped. I have perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties and also the relevant documents on record.
(3.) THE petitioners rely on the orders of the Basic Education Officer referred to herein above which indicate that their services were being regularized. It is correct that there is no such provision for regularization of the appointments. The three Institutions to which the petitioners belong have been granted permanent recognition in the year 1986. The appointments of the petitioners as indicated in the said orders appear to be prior to the Institution having been granted permanent recognition. There is reason to presume that the Institutions must be having temporary recognition under the Basic Education Act, 1972 prior to 1986. If that is so then the rules relating to appointment of teachers in such privately managed Institutions had already been brought into force in the year 1978. A recognized Institution under the Basic Education Act has to proceed to make appointment under the 1978 Rules and not otherwise. The procedure has to be followed even if the Institution is not under the grant -in -aid list. The aforesaid issue, therefore, has to be examined as to whether the petitioners were appointed after following the due procedure prescribed in law.;