R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner. This petition has been filed challenging the provisions of Sec. 7AA(5) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to us the Act) on the grounds that it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it discriminates the teachers in payment of salary for the same work, i.e. teaching of the students. Sec. 7AB of the Act which excludes the teachers appointed under Sec. 7AA of the Act from the purview of U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act. 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Selection Board Act, 1992 has also been challenged on the same grounds. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the institution Janta Adarsh Intermediate College, Malendi, district Muzaffarnagar was granted recognition by order dated 31.8.1992 for the subjects English, Sanskrit, History, Economics, Hindi and Civics for Intermediate classes and they were also permitted to impart teaching students for preparing them to appear in 1994 Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. By order dated 8.9.1992 committee of management was permitted to start new classes under the aforesaid recognition. The committee of management invoking provisions of Sec. 7AA of the Act employed part time teachers for teaching work. Petitioner was one of the teachers so employed by the committee of management. The grievance of petitioner is that though he is doing the same job, he is being paid salary at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per lecture while the other teachers doing same job are being paid much higher salary. On this ground, the provisions of Sec. 7AA and 7AB of the Act have been challenged being violative of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Karnataka State Private College Stop -gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others : (1992) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1110 and Karunapati Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others : (1986) U.P.L.B.E.C. 172 (D.B.).
(2.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and also the cases relied on and mentioned above. The purpose and object of Sec. 7AA of the Act appears to be to enable the committee of management to meet the immediate need of the students by appointing part -time teachers. The committee of management has been permitted to engage under the aforesaid provisions part -time teachers for imparting instructions without going through the normal procedure of employment prescribed under the Act or under the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The teachers so employed under Sec. 7AA of the Act thus form a different class engaged under different circumstances. It can also be fairly assumed that while starting new classes under the recognition granted, at the beginning the strength of the students cannot be much and the work load and responsibility on such teachers cannot be the same as it happens to be on the regularly appointed teachers serving in the institution. There cannot be any doubt that on basis of nature and procedure of employment and work and responsibility, the part -time teacher employed under Sec. 7AA of the Act and regularly appointed teacher under procedure prescribed under law form two different classes. There is thus no question of discrimination and violation of Article 14 or Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The legislative intent behind enacting the provisions of Sec. 7AA of the Act appears to leave the committee of management free for meeting the special circumstance arising out of opening new classes under recognition granted, as in case of normal procedure for appointing teachers a long time may be taken.
(3.) SAME way the exemption of such teachers from the purview of U.P. Act No. 21 of 1971 and Act No. 5 of 1982 can also not be said to be discriminatory. The purpose and object appears to save the State Exchequre from bearing the burden of payment of salary to teachers until they are not regularly appointed according to the procedure prescribed under law and till then burden has been left on management to pay salary to the part -time teachers engaged by way of time -gap arrangement. Facts of the present case are wholly different from the case reported in : (1992) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1110 where the ad -hoc teachers were employed and were continued for number of years. Such ad -hoc appointees were not part -time teachers and they discharged the duties, like other teachers. For the same reason the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court can also not be applied to the facts of present case. Similarly in the case reported in : 1986 U.P.L.B.E.C. 172 (D.B.), the question involved was entirely different. Ad -hoc teachers was appointed on 1.8.1976 which fell between 18.8.1975 and 30.9.1976. However, the approval was granted with effect from 24.12.1976 by the District Inspector of Schools and on this basis petitioner in that case was deprived of the right of regularisation, this Court held that teacher was entitled for regularisation. No such question is involved in the present writ petition. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly rejected.;