S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 25.7.2000 as contained in Annexures-11 to 13 of the writ petition and the order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad in so far it relates to withholding of petitioner's salary. A further prayer has been made for payment of arrears of petitioner's salary and also current salary.
(2.) There is a post graduate college in district Auraiya known as Janta Mahavidyalaya, Ajitmal, Auraiya affiliated to Chatrapati Sahujl Maharaj Vishwavidyalaya, Kanpur. An advertisement was published in daily newspaper 'Aaj' and 'City Pioneer' dated 28.2.1994 inviting applications for the appointment of the post of Cataloguer, Assistant Accountant and Junior Lab Assistant. The post of Cataloguer and Assistant Accountant was one each and the post of Junior Lab Assistant was two in number. It has been stated in para 5 of the writ petition that the post of Cataloguer was published with the permission of the Director of Education and other posts were advertised after permission of the Regional Higher Education Officer. After interview, the recommendation of the Selection Committee was placed before the Committee of Management who in its meeting dated 2.8.1998 approved the recommendation. The papers regarding petitioner's selection were also sent to the Regional Higher Education Officer who by orders dated 25.8.1998, 8.9.1998 and 26.8.1998 granted approval to the petitioner's selection. The aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexures-4 to 6 to the writ petition. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and they started working. All the petitioners were also paid their regular salary month to month from the date they started working. It appears that on 20.7.1999, the Director of Higher Education wrote a letter to the manager of the College in which, it was stated that certain irregularities were reported in the appointment of the petitioners in respect to which enquiry was going on and, therefore, it was directed that the petitioner's selection shall not be confirmed and their salary were also stopped. The petitioners were called upon for hearing by the Joint Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 21.9.1999 upon which, the petitioners appeared, hearing was done but nothing could be done in the matter and the petitioner's salary was stopped. In the meantime, the Manager of the College also served a notice dated 25.7.2000 to the effect that the petitioners will not be permitted to work. It is this action of the respondents, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. It appears that during the pendency of this petition, on account of direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No, 28920 of 1998 filed by one Sanjay Dubey, validity of appointment of present petitioner was examined by the educational authorities for which an order of the Joint Director of Education (Higher Education) dated 26.2.2002, has been brought on record. It appears that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, the matter has not been finally adjudicated and simply it has been mentioned that in respect to the petitioner's claim, counter-affidavit in detail and stay vacation application has already been filed. In view of this, pleadings as has been set forth before this Court, will have to be examined and rival claims will have to be decided.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that all the posts on which the petitioners have been appointed were to be filled by the direct recruitment. It has been argued that main ground which has been mentioned by the respondents in the counter-affidavit happens to be that the Director of Higher Education has issued a letter on 21.2.1998 informing the Manager/Principal of all the non-Government Colleges not to make any selection/ appointment of the employees in the affiliated non-Government colleges for the reason that some rules are to be framed in this respect. Learned counsel submits that this approach of the respondents is totally unwarranted and it is for this reason, petitioner's selection cannot be held to be illegal. It has also been argued that on account of a complaint by one of the member of Selection Committee, earlier the District Magistrate passed an order not to proceed with the selection and thereafter, on 15.6.1998, the District Magistrate permitted to proceed with the selection. The permission as given by the District Magistrate dated 15.6.1998 is Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit.;