Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to have a brilliant academic career. She has done Master of Arts in both psychology as well as Education and has completed her L.T. On 11th August, 1984 an advertisement was published in the news paper 'Amrit Prabhat' inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in District Board Girls Inter College Sirsa in the subject of Education. The petitioner applied for the said post and she was called for interview which was held on 15 -6 -1989. However, thereafter nothing happened and she was compelled to file a writ petition in this Court and this Court passed an order dated 16 -9 -1991 to the effect that the petitioner should make a representation. The petitioner made several representations but to no avail and hence she has been compelled to file this petition. A counter -affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the State Government had passed order dated 22 -9 -1989 banning selection and appointment of lecturers and L.T. Grade teachers. Letter dated 20 -11 -1991 has been annexed to the counter -affidavit which refers to the Government Order dated 28 -11 -1991.
(2.) BY my order dated 18 -12 -1991 I directed the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to file a supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of G.O. dated 22 -9 -1989 as well as the order dated 30 -7 -91 and I had also directed the State Government to file counter -affidavit and clarify under what provision of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act the ban order dated 22 -9 -1989 was issued. The only counter -affidavit, which has been filed before me is that of the Commission but there is no counter -affidavit of the State Government. In the supplementary counter -affidavit of the Commission copies of the Government orders dated 22 -9 -1989 and 30 -7 -1991 have been annexed. In these Government orders it has been stated that for the time being the selection process of ad hoc L.T. Grade and lecturer grade teachers should be stopped. I have not been shown any provision under which such a general ban can be issued for stopping selection of lecturers and L.T. Grade teachers. There is no such provision in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. In fact, the Government orders dated 22 -9 -1989 and 30 -7 -1991 are contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act. A bare perusal of the provisions of the said Act shows that appointments have to be made only on the recommendation of the Commission except as provided in Section 18, Section 4(b) to (d) to Section 33 and 33A. There is no power conferred by the said Act on the State Government which permits the State Government to ban selections by the Commission The State Government has no power to stop the Commission from performing its functions which have been entrusted to it by the Legislature. Hence the Government orders dated 22 -9 -1989 and 30 -7 -1991 are illegal and ultra vires.
(3.) THE Government orders dated 22 -9 -1989 and 30 -7 -1991 are also, in my opinion, arbitrary, and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is wholly unreasonable to ban ad hoc appointments of teachers in High Schools and Intermediate Colleges, particularly since it is well known that the Secondary Education Commission often does not select regular teachers even long after the vacancy is notified. Hence, unless ad hoc appointments are made the teaching work will suffer. To ban such appointments is, therefore, clearly arbitrary.;