- (1.) INSTANT appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4968(S/S) of 1987. While allowing the writ petition, a mandamus has been issued to take work from the petitioner -respondent on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question and pay back wages to the extent of 50%.
(2.) THE respondent -petitioner was appointed on 8.9.1978. The appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer by letter dated 4.9.1978. In July, 1984, the institution was brought under grant -in -aid. Since the respondent petitioner's salary bill was not prepared by the Manager, he moved a representation to the District Basic Education Officer who by letter dated 31.7.1985, directed the Manager to allow the respondent petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher and he be paid salary. The order of the District Basic Education Officer was not complied with, hence the petitioner submitted representation and reminders but failed to get response. Plea before the District Basic Education Officer was that by change of management, he has been ousted to accommodate other. The Manager was playing fraud by manipulating the record. It was also pleaded that the appointment was made within the sanctioned strength before the college came into grant -in -aid list. The District Basic Education Officer sent another letter dated 20.2.1987 directing that unless the petitioner -respondent's services were absorbed and be paid salary, no further appointment shall be made. The order of the District Basic Education Officer was not complied with. Hence, a notice dated 25.4.1987 was served on the Manager for single hand operation and by an order dated 18.5.1987, the Accounts Officer was directed to submit salary bill.
(3.) INSTEAD of ensuring compliance of the order passed in the manner hereinabove, the District Basic Education Officer for extraneous reasons permitted to make advertisement on 7.7.1987 for fresh recruitment without reviewing the order dated 20.2.1987 with due opportunity to the petitioner -respondents. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring writ petition in the year 1987 with the prayer that he may be paid salary as his services have not been terminated with due communication in accordance with law and he be permitted to continue in service. The petitioner -respondent claimed salary from July, 1986 on the post of Assistant Trained Teacher and from August, 1985 to June, 1986 in untrained scale.;