- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging notice dated 9-11-2001 issued by the Director of Education (Madhyamik), Faizabad directing them to show cause as to why action be not taken to cancel their irregular promotion. It appears that petitioners were appointed as ad hoc L. T. Grade teachers and approval to their appointments was granted on 11-3-83 by the D. I. O. S. Their services were regularized on 8-2-96 but were not paid salary, hence they filed writ petition in this Court in which this Court directed for payment of their salary. It is admitted by the respondents that Regional Deputy Director of Education, Faizabad by his letter dated 11-3-1981 sanctioned three posts of Lecturers in Hindi, Sanskrit and Economics with the condition that on promotion to these posts, the resulting vacancies in C. T. grade will be abolished and no appointment shall be made on them. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that concealing these facts, the Management appointed three teachers of C. T. grade in 1996 namely, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Shatrudaman Singh and Ram Kewal Gaur illegally, which had been abolished. At the time of audit by the Regional Audit Unit it was found that the aforesaid teachers were appointed illegally and had been drawing salary for several years. In view of this report action under Section 6-E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act was taken and they were directed by letter dated 9-11-2001 to appear before the authority concerned (Annexure-10 to the writ petition ). The petitioners did not appear before the competent authority nor gave any reply instead have filed this writ petition and obtained interim order. The petitioners contend that the appointment was made long back in the case. The Court should not cancel them as the power of cancellation under Section 16 (10) should have been exercised within a reasonable time. Hence, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE petitioners have relied upon Full Bench decision in Smt. S. K. Chaudhry v. Committee of Management, 1991 (1) UPLBEC page-250. It was a case of seniority. THE Full Bench held that the seniority determined 17 years back should not be disturbed under Section 16-E (10) after such a long time. THE petitioners have also relied upon Zailoom Fatima in 1999 (1) UPLBEC page-2136, in which the Division Bench has held that powers under Section 16-E (10) to correct appointments should be exercised within a reasonable time. THE Court further held that appointment by promotion to C. T. grade and L. T. grade should not be interfered after lapse of 23 years, which were irregular and not in accordance with law. In the instant case, the order dated 11-3-81 was clear and unambiguous that the three posts of C. T. grade teachers would stand abolished and no appointment would be made on them. This is not a case of irregular appointment or irregular promotion. The appointments were not made against non existing posts. The appointments were void-ab-initio, which cannot be regularized or given a legal recognition. The Management obtained approval by concealment of facts. The District Inspector of Schools, Sri Hridaya Kumar Das gave approval for ad hoc appointment for six months only without applying his mind and for reasons best known to him.;