R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) The Committee of Management of Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college) invited applications on 22-7-1979 for the post of Assistant Teacher (Sitar) in u T. Grade. Petitioner and others applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement. The petitioner was ultimately selected by a selection committee and the committee of management accordingly resolved to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Sitar). The manager of the college thereafter issued an order of appointment dated 15-10-1979 to the petitioner, appointing her on probation for one year. In pursuance of the appointment letter, she joined the college as Assistant Teacher (Sitar). Petitioner's appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress for Girls Schools, 4th Region, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the R. I. G. S.) by her letter dated 17-11-1979. It appears that the Director of Education by his letter dated 27-6-1980 informed the R. I. G. S. that the post against which the petitioner has been appointed should have been filled in by promotion and not by direct recruitment and accordingly suggested that action for termination of service of the petitioner be taken under Regulation 25 of Chapter 3 of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The R. I. G. S. vide her letter dated 31-7-1980 asked the manager to take action as required by the letter of the Director of Education, mentioned above. Manager of the college vide his letter dated 9-8-1980 has accordingly terminated the service of the petitioner under Regulation 25 after giving one month notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the Director of Education, R. I. G. S. and the manager of the college. At the time when the writ petition was filed, this Court stayed the operation of the order of termination of the service of the petitioner, which was confirmed on 14-9-1981.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on four grounds, namely (1) petitioner, being probationer, could not have been removed from service without prior approval of the R. I. G. 8. (ii) no teacher of the college including the respondent No. 4 was eligible for being promoted and the post has to be filled by direct recruitment only. Question of promotion as such did not arise, (iii) petitioner was entitled to the notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before termination of her service, and (iv) even if the post was liable to be filled by promotion, petitioner's appointment could not have been cancelled as she is not guilty of fraud and misrepresentation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, disputed the claim of the petitioner and has requested for the dismissal of the petitioner.;