S.C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) BY the judgment under appeal dated 21st January, 1993, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of three writ petitions in which the dispute centered round the termination of services of two teachers of an educational institution. The management of the institution has come up in Special Appeal. The institution in which the two teachers were employed in Sukh Devi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahewa, District Etawah, recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for short 'Act.' The institution will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Institute'. Initially the Institute was of Junior High School level. Subsequently it was upgraded to the level of High School and with effect from 3rd October, 1977 it was recognised under the provisions of the Act. Despite this upgradation, Classes I to V remained attached to the Institute. Smt. P. Saxena and Km. Prabha Gaur, respondents 4 and 5, were appointed Assistant Teachers in C.T. Grade after due selection by a Selection Committee on 1st July, 1978. Smt. Saxena joined the post on the 4th July, 1978 and Km. Gaur joined the post on 13th July, 1978. On 15th April, 1984, the Manager of the Institute issued notices terminating the services of the said two teachers. This termination of services was effected after the two teachers had put in more than five years of service. The two teachers challenged the order of termination of their services through separate writ petitions. Km. Gaur's writ petition was numbered as 7064 of 1984 and Smt. Saxena's was numbered as 7065 of 1984. By an order dated 7 -5 -1987 the learned Single Judge directed the teacher -respondents to approach the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary -I, Shiksha Nideshalaya, U.P. Allahabad) for short 'D.D.E.', who was required to look into the matter and decide the controversy in the context of the D.O. letter dated 11th April, 1984 written by Smt. Kumud Lata Singh, the then Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools, Allahabad, to Sri M.A. Mani, the then D.D.E. In pursuance of the Court's direction, the two teachers approached the D.D.E., who passed an order dated 13th October, 1992, whereby he held that the order of the Manager terminating the services of the two teachers were invalid. Aggrieved by the order of the D.D.E. the management of the Institute filed writ petition No. 4400 of 1992. By the judgment under appeal dated 21st January, 1993, the learned Single Judge has upheld the validity of the order of the D.D.E., dated 13th October, 1992 and has accordingly dismissed the writ petition filed by the management as lacking in merit, He has dismissed the writ petitions of the teacher -respondents as having been rendered infructuous on account of the order of the D.D.E. dated 13th October, 1992. It is in these circumstances that the management has preferred the instant Special Appeal.
(2.) BEFORE coming to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of the controversy raised before the learned Single Judge and its treatment by him may be noticed. Before the learned Single Judge the plea of, the management -appellant was that the order dated 13th October, 1992 was passed by the D.D.E. in breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as copy of the representation made by the teachers in pursuance of the Court's order dated 7th May, 1987, was not supplied to it; the teachers were teaching in Primary Section which was not governed by the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and, therefore, the D.D.E. had no jurisdiction in the matter; the services of the two teachers were purely contractual and were not regulated by any statutory provision and, therefore, the orders of termination of their services were not challengeable in a court of law, not even in this Court under. Article 226 of the Constitution; the two teachers were appointed on purely ad hoc basis and their appointment was not made against sanctioned posts and, therefore, the orders of termination of their services were not challengeable.
(3.) THE plea of the two teachers before the learned Single Judge was as follows:;