R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) AGAINST on order granting L.T. Grade to the petitioner, who is a teacher in Nagarpalika Intermediate College, Mogalsarai, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as College), the respondent No. 2, who is also teacher in the same college, filed claim petitioner before U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, on the ground that the petitioner does not have requisite qualifications required for L.T. Grade and on the other hand the said respondent No. 2 was entitled to L.T. Grade being qualified for it. The Service Tribunal by its order dated 4 -11 -1977 has partly allowed the aforesaid claim quashing the grant of L.T. Grade to the petitioner but refused to recognise right of the respondent No. 2 for promotion to the L.T. Grade, for want of relevant material on record. The Service Tribunal accordingly directed the management of the college to consider the respondent No. 2 for L.T. Grade, if she is qualified. Against this order the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that she is fully qualified and the findings recorded by Service Tribunal are not sustainable. The essential qualification for the disputed post are Intermediate with technical drawing or High School with technical drawing and any one of five qualifications including Intermediate grade drawing examination, Bombay. However, teachers in girls institutions have been exempted from qualification in technical drawing. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from qualification of technical drawing, as she is a teacher in a girls institution. It is not possible to accept this plea of the learned counsel as the college, according to averments of the petitioner herself in para. 1 of the writ petition, is an institution imparting education both to girls and boys. The college has a system of co -education and such an institution cannot be called to be girls institution only. From perusal of the order of Service Tribunal it is quite obvious that both the parties had argued the case before Tribunal on the basis that the college is not a girls institution. The petitioner was neither qualified for L.T. Grade nor was she granted any relaxation in regard to the essential qualifications and as such she was not entitled to the grant of L.T. Grade. The order of the Service Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity which would justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IN the end, it has been argued that the petitioner has been granted L.T. Grade by the college by order dated 26 -12 -1978, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -1 to supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that in pursuance of impugned order of Service Tribunal the Prabhari Adhikari Nagarpalika considered and upheld the case of the answering respondent and the said respondent joined duties on 25 -4 -1978, but in view of the interim order dated 8 -8 -1978 passed by this court in this writ petition the order dated 26 -12 -1978 was passed. The interim order dated 8 -8 -1978, passed by this court is quoted below: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Nagarpalika Mogalsarai will, however, consider the case of the respondent No. 2 for being given the L.T. Grade as directed by the Tribunal by its order dated 4 -11 -1977 but during pendency of the petition, the petitioner's services will not be terminated. By interim order dated 8 -8 -1978 referred to above the respondents were restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner with the result that by order dated 26 -12 -1978 the petitioner has been allowed to hold L.T. Grade and the respondent No. 2 has been permitted to continue to work in L.T. Grade without any payment. The order dated 26 -12 -1978 (ANNEXURE - -1 to supplementary affidavit) was obviously an order passed in compliance with the interim order passed by this court and is not the order passed on merits. There is express recital in that order to that effect. The aforesaid order dated 26 -12 -1978 cannot stand after the writ is decided. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed. Although the petitioner was not entitled to L.T. Grade, as she did not passes requisite qualification, but she has continued to hold that post for the past more than 12 years, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 8 -8 -1978. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 has been granted the post and has continued to work on that post right from 1978, but he has not been paid salary for that post on account of the order dated 26 -12 -1978 passed in compliance with the interim stay order of this court mentioned above. With the disposal of this writ petition the order dated 26 -12 -1978 will fall to the ground automatically with the result that the petitioner will stand reverted to C.T. Grade and respondent No. 2 will be entitled for salary of the L.T. Grade teacher right from 25 -4 -1978 on which date she was promoted to that post. As the petitioner is holding L.T. Grade post for about more than 14 years due to delay in deciding this writ petition, it will be highly improper and unfair to revert her to the old position of C.T. Grade after working in L.T. Grade for about 14 years. It will also not be justified to recover from her salary of the L.T. Grade which must have been paid to her on account of the interim order of this court. Although writ petition is liable to be dismissed, but on account of delay in disposal of the writ petition for which none of the parties are responsible, it is expedient in the interest of justice that equity be adjusted, so as to save the parties from suffering irreparable loss.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions. (i) Respondent No. 2 will be paid salary of the L.T. Grade with effect from 25 -7 -1978 after making adjustment of the amount already received by him for lower rank. (ii) salary of the L.T. Grade already paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered from her. (iii) Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 will consider petitioner's case and retain her in the L.T. Grade, if there is any existing post in that grade and if there is no such post available additional post of L.T. Grade will be created so as to adjust the petitioner. (iv) petitioner will not be entitled to claim seniority over respondent No. 2. Normally this court does not issue directions of the nature made in this case, but on account of the inordinate delay in disposal of the writ petition, for which no party is responsible, issuance of such directions, by this court, have become necessary. In view of facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.;