R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as L.T. grade teacher in Sri Jawahar Lal Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jakha, Post Office Khajani, district Gorakhpur by appointment letter, dated 14 -7 -1974. The petitioner was also permitted to work as temporary Headmaster as there was no vacancy of the Headmaster. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools, vide letter, dated 9 -4 -1975 approved the continuance of the petitioner as ad hoc Headmaster only till 30 -5 -1975. It seems that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner continued to work as Headmaster of the institution till 30 -6 -1975. Thereafter the question of his approval again came up before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools, vide letter, dated 14 -7 -1976 wrote to the Manager of the institution that the petitioner was not given approval for the year 1974 -75 in L.T. grade but instead thereof he was permitted to function as Headmaster of the institution till 30 -5 -1975. Thereafter an application has been moved for grant of approval to the petitioner for the year 1975 -76 as L.T. grade teacher. The necessary papers for his approval were sent and the temporary approval was granted till 30 -6 -1976 and according to the Government order, the petitioner was entitled to continue till 30 -9 -1975. Accordingly, according to the Removal of Difficulties Order, the petitioner's appointment was extended till 30 -9 -1976. The petitioner admittedly continued to work as L.T. grade teacher till 18 -9 -1979. On 18 -9 -1979, the petitioner has been served with a letter saying that since the petitioner is a junior most L.T. grade teacher and there is no sanctioned post of L.T. grade teacher, therefore, the petitioner may continue if he so likes in the C.T. grade. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in the present writ petition. An interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which, the petitioner continued to teacher as L.T. grade teacher. In the impugned order itself it was mentioned that whenever there will be vacancy in the L.T. grade, the petitioner will be absorbed in the L.T. grade. It is also admitted that now C.T. grade has been abolished and the only grade in which the teachers are appointed are L.T. grade. The C.T. grade has now become dying cadre and no person is appointed in C.T. grade. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has continued in L.T. grade. Irrespective of the merit of writ petition, the petitioner cannot be reverted to C.T. grade now. The question still will be whether the respondents were justified in reverting the petitioner to C.T. grade. The only ground on the basis of which the petitioner has been reverted back to C.T. grade is that the petitioner is junior most teacher. The petitioner in paragraph '13' of the writ petition has stated that the petitioner is senior most L.T. grade teacher and has been wrongly reverted in C.T. grade. No counter -affidavit has been filed in the writ petition. The statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition has to be accepted to be true. On the basis of the statement made in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has been arbitrarily reverted from L.T. grade to C.T. grade. The said order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(2.) THERE is another aspect of the matter also that all ad hoc appointments of the teachers made in the Intermediate. Colleges before 30 -6 -1975 were regularised by the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order, 1976. Sub -clause (3) provided that where any person appointed by the Committee of Management as a teacher on or before June 30, 1975 for any period as a temporary measure with the approval or permission of the Inspector and such person has worked thereafter after November (15, 1976, he shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided the appointment was initially made in a clear vacancy from the date of the appointment. The petitioner claimed that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as a teacher and was permitted to continue as Head -master, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order. Besides the aforesaid provisions, Section 16GG has been inserted in the Act which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16E, Section 16F and Section 16FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both days inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possesses the prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications shall with effect from the date of the commencement of the section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is, in any case, entitled to be regularised under the aforesaid provision.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the petitioner has continued as L.T. grade teacher right from 14 -7 -1974 till this date and in view of the fact that the petitioner's statement that he was not the junior most teacher and was wrongly reverted to C.T. grade has not been disputed by filing counter -affidavit, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioner was wrongly reverted from L.T. grade to G.T. grade and the letter, dated 18 -9 -1979 is accordingly quashed. In view of this position, I do not think it necessary to consider the petitioner's alternative submission that the petitioner has been regularised under the aforesaid provision. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There is no order as to costs.;