M. Katju, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 2-9-1992 end 27-6-1987 (Annexures-11 and 5, to the petition). The petitioner did bis M A. in Ancient History from Gorakhpur University and was appointed as Assistant Teacher In 1961 in Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bharauli, District Bailia which is recognised Institution. He was confirmed in 1964 and was approved in 1974 by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner was granted selection grade on 26-12-1986 vide Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition. However, by the Impugned order dated 27-6-1987 the District Inspector of Schools cancelled the order granting selection grade to the petitioner without giving him proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner file an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 2-5-1992 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). Aggrieved this petition has been filed.
(2.) The G.O. dated 28-12-1981 which is Annexure-12 to the petition provides that a teacher who has completed 16 years of satisfactory services will be given selection grade. The petitioner completed 16 years of service In 1977 and there no allegation that his service was unsatisfactory. The said does not state the 16 years of service which is required selection grade of only the service which an employee has put after doing training. The petitioner did his training in 1977 as Is evident from the appellate order. In the impugned appellate order it has been stated that since before training the petitioner was getting only 2/3rd of the salary of trained teaches hence the petitioners service prior to training cannot be taken into consideration. In my opinion, this is not the correct interpretation of the said G.O. The purpose of fixing 16 years service for grant of selection grade is that during this period a teacher acquires sufficient experience so that he can be given a higher grade. It is well known that earlier many teachers were appointed without training, and hence if the interpretation of the respondent is accepted, it will mean that all such teachers will suffer merely because they had not got training. In my opinion this is not a reasonable interpretation. The G.O. dated 22-12-1983 referred to in the appellate order has been superseded by G.O. dated 26-9-1988 which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition. This G.O. does not apply to the petitioner as it applies only to the teachers who has been promoted from J.T.C. grade to the C.T. grade. The petitioner was directly appointed in C.T. grade, and hence this G.O. is not applicable to the petitioner. Moreover, this G O. was issued after gran; of selection grade to the petitioner and hence it does not apply to him.
(3.) There is also no denial that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 26-6-1987, Hence also the appellate order became illegal.;