R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE Committee of Management of Sri Mahatma Gandhi Smarak Inter College, South, District Mathura along with 8 other teachers have filed the present writ petition. The Committee of Management of the College advertised eight posts of C.T. grade teachers to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioners No. 2 to 9 alongwith other candidates applied for the posts. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 were duly selected for the respective post but the District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 only for limited period that too on ad hoc basis. On the expiry of the period for which the approval was granted, the Committee of Management again passed a resolution re -appointing these very petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 on their respective post and sought approval of their appointment. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 8 -8 -1978 disapproved the appointment of petitioner Nos. 2 to 9. This order of the District Inspector of Schools has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition. In the order dated 8th of August, 1978, the District Inspector of Schools held that only temporary approval was given for the appointment of 8 teachers, therefore, it is not possible to give approval for the same posts. The District Inspector of Schools has also stated in the said order that according to the Government instructions, the temporary appointments cannot be made on permanent posts. Temporary appointments can be made only on the posts while have fallen vacant either due to somebody's taking leave or due to suspension of somebody and such posts are to remain vacant for more than six months.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court while admitting the present writ petition passed an interim order in favour of the petitioners on 25 -8 -1978. This Court restrained the respondents from interfering with the functioning of petitioners No. 2 to 9 as teachers of Shri Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, South, District Mathura. In pursuance of the aforesaid stay order, the petitioners are still continuing in service. No counter -affidavit has been filed by the State. The petitioner's contention is that initially the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 were selected on permanent basis but the District inspector of Schools wrongly directed that petitioners No. 2 to 9 should be appointed on ad hoc basis and wrongly gave approval for only limited period. Since the Committee of Management was satisfied that the performance of petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 was satisfactory, the Committee of Management was of the opinion that their services should continue. In view of the fact that petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 have been continuing in service right from the year 1978 and are performing their duties since then and since the matter is not being contested on behalf of anybody, it is apparent that the petitioners' appointment has been treated to have been made on permanent basis and the order of disapproval passed against the petitioners No. 2 to 9 fourteen years back has lost its force - In view of the aforesaid development of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioners' writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is directed that petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 should be treated to have been permanently appointed on their post. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are duly qualified for their respective post and they have been teaching their subjects in the college satisfactorily for last 14 years. Their services need not be disturbed on the technical ground that initially the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9s' appointment was only on temporary basis. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 8 -8 -1978 disapproving the appointment of petitioners No. 2 to 9 direct the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 should be treated to have been regularly appointed on their respective post and should be paid their salary in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There is no order as to costs.;