S.K.Slngh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 25.3.2000. 7.3.2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 and 16.8.2001. communicated through letter dated 28.8.2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexures-6, 7 and 9 respectively. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of petitioner's salary w.e.f. 11.10.1999, as well as regular salary.
(2.) There is an intermediate college known as Gauri Pathshala Girls Intermediate College. Allahabad. Petitioner claims to be working as teacher in the primary section, which is claimed to be integral part of the intermediate college. The Committee of Management of the intermediate college as stated is the same and thus it is pleaded that primary section is also governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on occurrence of two vacancies for the post of B.T.C. grade teacher in the primary section, one reserved for the candidate belonging to O.B.C. category and other for General category, advertisement was duly published. Pursuant to the selection, recommendations were made by the selection committee. Petitioner claims to have been appointed by the appointment letter dated 8.10.1999 pursuant to which she joined on 11.10.1999. On sending papers for final approval, it is by the impugned order approval has been refused giving rise to the cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that on 10.11.1999 itself, Committee of Management forwarded the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools seeking approval and as no approval or dis-approval was communicated by the D.I.O.S. within one month from the date of receipt of proposal of the management. appointment of the petitioner stood approved and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Regulation 17 (G) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. It has been further submitted that the ground as has been given by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order that as quota of the reserved category teacher was not complete and thus the selection being against the provisions as contained in the reservation policy, is not acceptable for the simple reason that management has clearly recorded that no suitable candidate belonging to the O.B.C. category was available, therefore, it was not possible for the management to fill up the post by the candidate belonging to O.B.C. category and thus, the vacancy automatically reverted for the General category candidate. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid if petitioner being General category candidate was selected/appointed, which cannot be held to be illegal. To strengthen the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the petitioner referred the decision given by this Court in writ petition filed by Dr. Shashi Kant Rai and others as Writ Petition No. 30540 of 1996 decided on 20th May, 1998. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, it was argued that the reservation will be year wise and not cadre wise. Learned counsel submits that in the year for which the selection was to take place as no O.B.C. category candidate was available the vacancy will have to be reverted automatically for the candidate belonging to the General category.;