Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Clerk is. a recognised Institution and thereafter he was promoted as Head Cleric in the year 1971 in the Grade of Rs. 100 - -170. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation for one year and it was approved by the Managing Committee. After the period of probation was over, the petitioner became a confirmed employee. Under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, as they stood in 1971, no prior approval for appointment of a Clerk was required. After the Institution was covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, the District Inspector of Schools made a query on the basis of some complaint from the Management of the Institution regarding the appointment of the petitioner. It was pointed out by the District Inspector of Schools that the father of the petitioner is a founder Member of the Society which runs the Institution and was also a member of the Committee of Management and was instrumental in the appointment of the petitioner being a Member of the Selection Committee. The District Inspector of Schools on being satisfied that there was legal infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner being in violation of the provisions of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act refused to sanction the salary of the petitioner and directed for the termination of his services. The Services of the petitioner were thereafter terminated after giving three months' salary.
(2.) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 25 -5 -1978, 28 -6 -1968 and 8 -8 -1978 terminating his services on the ground that provisions of Regulation 4 of Chapter III framed under Section 16G of the Intermediate Education Act would only apply in the cases of teachers and would not be applicable in the case of ministerial staff. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. Regulation 22 of Chapter III prior to 1975 provided that the provisions of Regulation 4 shall mutatis mutandis apply to Clerks and Head Clerks of an Institution. As the provisions of Regulation 4 were applicable the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk was illegal and void. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, placed reliance on Bhopal Singh Verma v. The Deputy Director of Education : 1983 U.P.L.B.E.C. 597 and argued that the provisions of Section 16G upto 1975 remained confined in its application to principals, Head Masters and Teachers and nothing was provided therein in relation to Clerks. Sub -section (1) of Section 16G, as amended by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975 relates to conditions of service of the heads of Institution, teachers and other employees of the Institution. In my opinion, while making these observations, the learned Judge did not consider the provisions of Regulation 22 of Chapter III which specifically provided the application of Regulations 1, 4 to 15 of Chapter III. In the presence of specific Regulations on the Statute Book, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on Smt. Rani Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others : 1990 (16) ALR 357 : 1990 U.P.L.B.E.C. 425. and The Committee of Management of Rajendra Prasad Intermediate College V. The District Inspector of Schools : 1990 (16) ALR 361 : 1990 U.P.L.B.E.C. 189 in Support of his submission that after the appointment has resulted in a confirmed appointment and sufficient period has elapsed, the appointment cannot be set aside for any procedural irregularity and for that reason the petitioner should not be made to suffer.;