N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by a teacher in C.T. grade claiming a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21st May, 1990 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kannur Nagar. The other prayer is to issue a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner since the date petitioner is working i.e. since December, 1987 and pay future salary as and when it becomes due. It is worth noting that petitioner was appointed as temporary teacher in C.T. Grade in pursuance with advertisement issued in 1987 in C.T. Grade teacher The petitioner is a M.Sc. and is working as C.T. Grade teacher since December, 1987 and is not paid his salary since his appointment. The petitioner had filed earlier a writ petition No. 1560 of 1989 claiming the same relief's before this court. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 15th February 1990 was pleased to direct that representation be made by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools, who was directed to decide the representation in accordance with the decision reported in 1988 U.P. Local Bodies & Educational Cases page 223. Accordingly petitioner had submitted a representation before the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 21st May, 1990 rejected the representation filed by the petitioner, a copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools is annexed by the petitioner as annexure 4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the order of the District Inspector of Schools shows that he rejected the representation firstly on the ground that no communication was made by the committee of management regarding the vacancy in C.T. Grade. Secondly he relied on a Government order Ve. Ma/4993/13 -7 -179/81 dated 31 -7 -1981 by which it was clarified that the power to the authority to make appointment to C.T. grade vested only in the District Inspector of Schools and the present selection and appointment was not made by the District Inspector of Schools as such the appointment as alleged by the petitioner was held to be irregular, illegal and petitioner was held not to be entitled for any emoluments. The other reasons given by the District Inspector of Schools in his order is that C.T. Grade is a dying cadre and the Government also was not to make any appointment in C.T. grade. On these three grounds the petitioner's representation was rejected by the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner has pointed out paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition where it was categorically stated that information about the vacancy of a C.T. grade teacher was existing which fact was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 11 -7 -1986. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools the allegation has not been denied. Thus the observation in the order of the District Inspector of Schools that the fact that there was a vacancy in the institution in the C.T. grade was not communicated is based on no evidence and such a finding is to be ignored. The other factor to be noticed is that the information about vacancy of C.T. grade was communicated by the letter dated 11 -7 -1986 and accordingly appointment was made after publication in the newspaper on 15 -12 -1987 i.e. after, more than one year. In view of the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 an appointment after the communication of the facts of vacancy in the institution could be made if District Inspector of Schools fails to make appointments within period of one year. It was open for the management to make appointment in the present case. It is clear that the appointment was made after information to the District Inspector of Schools and also after expiry of one year, thus it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the provision of law.
(2.) IT is clear and it is apparent that the appointment was made in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The observation of the District Inspector of Schools that C.T. grade was a dying cadre and no permission could be given for appointment of C.T. grade is misconceived. The appointment was made in 1987 and the Government Order referred by the District Inspector of Schools in the order impugned is of 1989, as such it cannot be said that at the time appointment of the petitioner was made C.T. grade was a dying cadre. The reasons recorded by the District Inspector of Schools is misconceived. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner stated categorically in the writ petition at para No. 20 of the writ petition that he is continuously performing his duties for the last three years and was not paid his salary. In the counter affidavit the allegation that he is continuously working in the institution is not denied. The petitioner have annexed the authority under which he was appointed Invigilator in the Examination held of Board of High School and Intermediate Examination. No person other than a teacher is generally appointed as Invigilator in these examinations, The fact that the petitioner was assigned the work of Invigilator in the Board's Examination is also not denied by the District Inspector of Schools. In view of the uncontroverted allegations in the writ petition that petitioner is continuously working and his appointment was made after due information to the District Inspector of Schools after expiry of one year from the date of information is perfectly legal and in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1931. The District Inspector of Schools committed manifest error of law in refusing to accord permission and allow the representation, The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21st May, 1991, is annexure 4 to the writ petition is liable to be quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be working in the institution legally with effect from 14 -12 -1987 and shall be entitled to receive his past emoluments according to law and also shall be entitled to receive the future emoluments till he is continuing in service. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar is directed to pay the entire back salary of the petitioner and pay the current salary regularly as and when it becomes due. The entire back salary of the petitioner should be paid within 3 months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order before the District Inspector of Schools. The current salary of the petitioner for December 1991 shall be paid in January, 1992 latest by 15th of the month.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the parties in a week on payment of usual charges.;