K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17-7-78 and 4-8-78 of the District Inspector of Schools, filed as Annexures 4 and 5 to tins Writ Petition.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are these. The Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad, vide his letter dated 20-10-77 created one post of teacher in L T. Grade and three posts of teachers in C. T. Grade Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction, the Management, the petitioner No. 1, vide its resolution no. 2 dated 5-11-77 proposed temporary appointment of petitioners 2 to 5. It was followed by a letter dated 23 11-77 recommending to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval for the temporary appointment of the aforesaid petitioners 2 to 5. The District Inspector of Schools accepted the recommendation and approved the temporary appointment of petitioners 2 to 5 up to 20-5-1978. The appointment, thus, was to last on 20-5-1978. In the mean time, Ordinance no. 10 was promulgated by the Government making provisions for recruitment of teacher kept in the service pool. The Ordinance lapsed as it could not be made an Act within the time prescribed by the Constitution. But just, thereafter, Ordinance no. 22 of i97S was promulgated with retrospective effect from 24-6 68. The provisions of this Ordinance with in peri materia with those of U. P. Ordinance no. 10 of 1978 with some minor changes. The Ordinance mainly provided that unless the service pool teachers numbering 2 to 5 and 7 were absorbed in the substantive vacancies, no body else could be taken in,
(3.) On account of promulgation of the Ordinances 10 and 22 of 1978, petitioner no. 1 could not make any appointment on the posts vacant and, therefore, by its resolution dated 28-5-78, petitioner no. 1 made petitioners 2 to 5 continue on the post on which they were appointed in December, 1977. For the said purpose, a letter was also written by the Manager of petitioner no. 1 informing the District Inspector of Schools of the same. On 17-7-78, the District Inspector of Schools refused to pay the alary to petitioners 2 to 5 and wrote that appointment had to be made from amongst the service pool teachers and petitioners 2 to 5 could not be paid the salary if they worked on the post despite the expiry of the temporary period for which they had been, initially appointed. By the letter dated 4-8-78, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 5, the Manager of petitioner no. 1 was again informed by the District Inspector of Schools that selection was going to be made for appointment of Assistant Teachers on the aforesaid four posts from amongst the service pool teachers and. therefore, the petitioners 2 to 5 were not entitled to receive any salary. It was, thereafter, that the present petition was filed challenging the validity of Ordinance 22 of 1978.;