Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) The petitioners claim that they were validly appointed teachers of the Sukhda Shiksha Mandir Girls Intermediate College, Bindtaban and continued to serve the Institution in that capacity and are entitled to draw their salary as such. On the 4th of August, 1978 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order, of which a true copy has been filed as annexure no. 3 to this writ petition, to the effect that in accordance with the letter of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Agra the petitioners were not entitled to draw their salary as teachers of the above named Institution for the month of July, 1978. The order was communicated to the petitioners and by means of the letter they were asked to contact the Manager of the Institution for further particulars leading up to the order. On the same date the District Inspector of Schools sent a communication addressed to the Manager of Sukhda Siksha Mandir Girls Intermediate Collage, Bindraban, intimating that salary bills for the month of July, 1978 be prepared for the eight lady teachers mentioned therein who had been appointed as teachers by the Principal of the Institution and recognised as such by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School By means of the same communication the Manager was intimated that the petitioners were not entitled to draw their salary as teachers for the month of July, 1978. By means of this petition the petitioners challenge the action taken by respondent nos. 3 and 4 through the above-mentioned communications. Eight lady teachers who according to the communication dated 4th of August, 1978 were duly appointed teachers of the college and recognised as such were not impleaded as parties to this writ petition. Subsequently they applied for being arrayed as parties to this petition and their application was allowed and easy have been impleaded as opposite parties nos. 7 to 13. The Principal of the College, who according to the order mentioned above, claimed to have made the appointments of opposite parties nos. 7 to 13 as teachers of the college has also been impleaded as one of the opposite parties to this writ petition.
(2.) According to the petitioners, they were appointed as teachers of the college by management of the Institution by a resolution dated 5th of December 1975 and their appointments were approved by the then Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by an order dated 16th of January, 1976. According to this letter of approval a true copy of which has been filed as annexure no. 2 to this petition, the petitioners appointments were approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools up to 20th of May, 1976 Smt. Prabha Sharma who has been impleaded as one of the opposite parties to this writ petition was admittedly serving this Institution as its Principal. She was, it was not disputed, suspended from the post of Principal by the order dated 8th of December, 1974. Some litigation took place between Smt. Prabha Sharma and the management of which Sri Ram Deo Gautam claimed to be the manager. Smt. Prabha Sharmas dismissal was ultimately set aside by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 9th of September, 1977 and she was restored to service. Undisputably the petitioners continued to receive their salary as teachers of the Institution for the period ending June. 1978. It was only by means of the impugned orders that it was communicated to the management that they were not validly appointed teachers of the Institution and consequently not entitled to receive salary for the month of July, 1978 on wards and instead opposite parties nos. 7 to 13 were duly appointed and recognised teachers entitled to draw salary as such instead of the petitioners. The petitioners case is that they had been validly appointed by the Committee of Management on the 5th December, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Higher Secondary and Basic Schools Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 and that their appointments also had the approval of respondent no. 4. They claimed that they continued to serve the college concerned as its teachers on the basis of the various Removal of Difficulties Orders till the 20th of May, 1977 when Section 16-G was introduced in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act on the 21st of April, 1977. Their contention is that under the provisions of Section 16-GG, of the Act they became teachers of the college in substantive capacity and the orders impugned were passed illegally so as to deprive them of the status of teachers of the college and interfering with their rights to receive their salary in that capacity.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by Smt. Prabha Sharma which has supported the case of the opposite parties. The stand taken on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 also is that since on the 29th of the September, 1975 the Principal of the college had validly appointed opposite parties nos. 7 to 13 as teachers of the college there w-s no vacancy available on the 5th of December, 1975 when the petitioners claimed to have been appointed as teachers of the college by the committee of management of which Sri Gautam purported to be the Manager. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether on the 24th of September, 1975 Smt. Prabha Sharma in her capacity as Principal of the college was entitled to make appointments of the teachers at Sukhda Siksha Mandir Balika Intermediate College. The fact that on the 5th of September. 1975 the Committee of Management of the college did purport to appoint the petitioners as teachers of the college and those appointments received the approval of respondent no. 4 on the 18th of January, 1976 has not been disputed before us during the hearing of this petition. On behalf of the opposite parties in support of their contention that the Principal of the college was entitled to appoint the opposite parties nos. 7 to 13 as teachers of the college reliance was placed on paragraph 2, sub-para (f) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 which came into effect as a result of the Notification dated 18th of August, 1975. Admittedly the petitioners as well as opposite parties nos 7 to 13 both claimed to have been appointed as teachers through by different authorities during the subsistence of the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975. Paragraph 2 this order which is relevant for resolution of the problem raised before us runs as follows:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, any substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic session of the Head of Institution or a, teacher of an institution may be filled in by the committee of management, on ad hoc basis in the manner provided hereunder till such period, not exceeding six months in any case, as a person duly selected in accordance with Section 14 aforesaid is appointed against such vacancy. (b )........................ (c )....................... (d )....................... (e )...................... (f )............"Where on account of different or dispute or for any other reason there is no committee of management ineffective control of the affairs of an institution or has not been recognized as such by the Inspector and no authorised Controller has been appointed by the Slate Government in respect of such institution, the powers of the committee of management in the forgoing clauses shall in the case of appointment of the Head of Institution be exercised by the Inspector and in the case of appointment of a teacher be exercised by the Head of the Institution concerned.";