- (1.) These writ petitions, mentioned above, have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by various teachers alleged to have been appointed on ad hoc basis in dfferent Institutions of the State with a prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioners from the date of their appointments The Petitioners have claimed payrrent of salaries under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. In the case of Ram Lakhan Tripathi v. The District Inspector of Schools he has claimed his salary of lecturer on the ground that he was a senior most L.T. Grade teacher of the institution and was promoted by the committee of management on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit against 5% quota.
(2.) Since the questions involved in all the writ petitions are similar and common, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each case in our opinion, in these petitions two questions arise for determination which are as under: 1. Whether the teachers employed by the committee of management in various Intermediate Colleges of the State under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) are entitled to payment of salaries for which a mandamus, should be issued to the Respondents. 2. Whether a teacher who claims to have been promoted on the post of lecturer by the committee of management against 5% quota being the senior most teacher is entitled to his salary for which a mandamus should be issued to the Respondent
(3.) Before dealing with the aforesaid questions involved in these petitions we would like to refer to some of the important facts before passing of the enactment of Act No. 24 of 1971. After independence there have been mushroom growth of Intermediate/High Schools in the State which are being managed by the private committee of management. Teachers who were employed in these Institutions were not being paid their salaries in time, salaries were not being paid in full, some of them had to teach for several years in the hope of getting salaries. Payment of salaries to these teachers was solely the responsibility of the committee of management. The educated youths of the State were allured by these committee of managements to accept job of a teacher in the hope of getting salary payable to a teacher but some times they had to wait for getting the same for months and years together. These are the hard realities which cannot be ignored. Instances have not been only solitary but many where the poor teachers serving in these institutions were being exploited by the committee of management. We cannot refrain ourselves from observing that the State Government did not make any endeavour to establish government institutions in the State in the last 45 years i.e. since independence for the reasons best known to it. The education was allowed to be imparted by the private institutions controlled and managed by the committee of management, which in our opinion, has largely contributed to the spate of litigations. It was in this background that the State legislature enacted Act No. 24 of 1971 which was subsequent'y amended by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975. The said legislation was enacted with the solemn object to regulate the payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges receiving aid out of the said funds and to provide precedure for the same.;