S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) FIRST writ petition has been filed by Dr. Brij Lata and Smt. Gargi. Second writ petition has been filed by Kumari Poornima Rajvanshi, third writ petition has been filed by all the three lady teachers.
(2.) IN the first writ petition stay order was passed on 8 -8 -1986 “till further orders of the Court the services of the petitioners shall not be deemed to have come to an end only because 30th June, 1986 has intervened they shall continue” and in the second petition on 23 -8 -1986 “till further orders of the Court the services of the petitioner shall not be deemed to have come to an end only because 30th June, 1986 has intervened she shall continue”. By virtue of the aforesaid stay orders which are still continuing all the three aforesaid lady teachers claim to be working in institution in question. The main question to be decided in these writ petitions is as to whether services of the petitioners should be dispensed with on the basis of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Radha Raizada, 1994 UPLBEC 1551, after more than 17 years or they must be spared this ordeal on equitable grounds due to continuance in service, by virtue of interim order of this Court which was perfectly in accordance with the view of this Court taken in several authorities which were good law at that time but over ruled in this year 1994 by Full Bench authority of Radha Raizada (supra). Prior to the Full Bench authority of this Court of Radha Raizada (supra), the view of this Court was that Section 18 and first removal of difficulty order of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act (Commission Act in short), two different modes of ad hoc appointment of teachers in recognized High Schools and Intermediate Colleges were provided and that Section 18 of the Commission Act was de hors the first removal of difficulty orders. According to the said view, management after intimating a substantive vacancy to commission and on the failure of the commission to recommend the name of duly selected teachers was entitled and authorized to select on its own without intervention of D.I.O.S. a teacher on the said substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis and that such appointment was to remain in operation until a duly selected candidate from the commission joined. In Adarsh Kanya Inter College Garh Mukteshwar District Ghaziabad (as it was at the relevant time) (hereinafter referred to as the College) all the three petitioners were granted ad hoc appointment as Lecturers by the Committee of Management of the College on 10 -8 - 1984/25 -6 -1985, 25 -6 -1985 and 10 -8 -1984/26 -6 - 1985 respectively. R.I.G.S. approved the appointment of all the three petitioners by orders dated 15 -11 -1984; 3 -2 -1986 and 13 -2 - 1986. However, in the latter two orders it was directed that appointment should remain valid only until 30 -6 -1986.
(3.) IT is stated in Para 26 of the third writ petition that in May 1995 advertisement was published by the commission inviting application for making regular selection/appointment against several posts of Lecturers including the post held by the petitioner. Through the said writ petition prayer was made for quashing the said advertisement and for other reliefs. This Court by order dated 20 -2 -1996 passed the following interim order “In the meanwhile the process of selection for appointment on the posts in question shall go on and appoint (sick) will also be made but the same shall not be given effect to and shall be subject to the result of this petition.” There is no material in the file, which may suggest that any person was selected or appointed on the posts held by the petitioners. Through amendment in the earlier two writ petitions which was allowed it was prayed that respondents be commanded to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under Section 33 -A of the Commission Act and for granting selection grade. Through amendment it has been stated that the committee of management resolved to grant selection grade to the petitioners which was approved by D.I.O.S. and Accounts Officer and petitioners were given selection grade however D.I.O.S. by order dated 26 -7 -2002 directed that excess amount paid to the petitioner shall be recovered from them, in view of the fact that petitioners were continuing in service on the basis of interim order passed by High Court and their service had not been regularized. The said order has also been sought to be quashed.;