Sudhir Narain - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 15th September. 1994 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Lalitpur cancelling the appointment of 82 candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in basic school maintained by U. P. Basic Education Board.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Shukla for the respondent. Admittedly there were 82 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers which were to be filled in various primary schools maintained by U. P. Basic Education Board. The appointment was to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules. 1981. The procedure for inviting implications, making selection and preparation of list and issuing of appointment letters was given in this Rule Rule 14 of 1981 Rules provides for determination of vacancies and preparation of list. Rule 15 provides for notification of vacancies and preparation of list of eligible candidates for certain posts of Assistant Masters/Mistresses of Senior Basic Schools. Rule 16 provides for constitution of Selection Committee and Rule 17 provides the manner in which the Selection Committee is to consider the candidates for selection and preparation of list of selected candidates. The petitioners were given appointment letter on 19th August, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed as Anneure-3 to the writ petition. This appointment order has been cancelled by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by order dated 15th September, 1994. The order indicates that back dated appointments were made. Various complaints were received and on the basis of the complaints enquiry was conducted and it was found that procedure prescribed in Rules of 1981 were not followed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners had been given appointment letters and they have joined the institution at the place of their postings. In case there was any illegality in the appointment order or certain procedure was not followed, the petitioners should have been given opportunity of hearing LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that as the procedure for making appointment was not followed the appointment order was itself void-ab-initio. In Shridhar v. Nagar Palika Jaunpur, AIR 1990 SC 307, where the appointment of the candidate was cancelled by the Commissioner on the ground that the appointment was in violation of the Government order dated 10-4-1950, it was held that such person should be given opportunity of hearing before appointment order is cancelled. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the candidate to hold the post till it is legally set aside.;