Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) ANUSUIYA Mahila Higher Secondary School, Chhoti Piyari, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the institution) is a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It imparts education from Class 1 to 10th. The City Magistrate, Varanasi was appointed as the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution. The institution was brought on grant-in-aid list of the State Government after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools Vth Region, Varanasi sanctioned 7 posts of B.T.C. grade vide letter No. 2514-16-79-80, dated 1.6.1979. The Director of Education for the first time vide his letter dated 19.11.1997, delegated his power to Regional Educational authorities to sanction posts in the educational institution. From the impugned order it is evident that the contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 based their appointments in B.T.C. Grade in the institution on the basis of an alleged order dated 24.8.1972 said to have been issued by R.I.G.S., Varanasi, by means of which she has sanctioned 9 posts of B.T.C. Grade. It is alleged that sanction order dated 24.8.1972 was without jurisdiction and void, apart from the fact that it was forged and fictitious document and did not contain even the signature of the competent authority. It is further alleged that since in the institution there were only 7 sanctioned posts against which teachers in B.T.C. Grade were working and paid salary from the State fund, as such the alleged appointments of respondent No. 4 based upon the said order dated 24.8.1972 was not legal.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been averred that on a complaint to the District Magistrate, Varanasi during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition an enquiry was conducted by the City Magistrate, Varanasi, i.e., the Prabandh Sanchalak of the College. The City Magistrate, Varanasi after affording opportunity to the concerned parties and perusing the records has recorded categorical findings of facts that the alleged order dated 24.8.1972 is a fake document and, therefore, the subsequent order dated 2.9.1988 has no substance in eye of law. In view of fact that there were only 7 sanctioned posts in B.T.C. Grade in the institution, vide R.I.G.S. letter dated 1.6.1979, on which 7 teachers were already appointed and getting their salary. The alleged appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis of aforesaid fraudulent letter dated 24.8.1972 is illegal and they have no right to claim appointment and salary.;