R.B.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) IN the above petitions all the petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Teachers or Lecturers in INtermediate Colleges on ad hoc basis in substantive vacancies after 14th of July, 1992. The appointments of these petitioners have been made by the Committee of Managements of various institutions in violation of the provisions of section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as amended by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992. Since the appointments of the petitioners have been made in violation of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 substituting section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, in these group of petitions, the vires of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 have been challenged. IN writ petition No. 44474 of 1993, Bechan Prasad v. State of U. P. and others, Additional grounds have been urged by making an application, for amendments also challenging the vires of U. ?. Act No. 5 of 1982.
(2.) SRI A. N. Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing in writ petition No. 44474 of 1993 and Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel appearing in writ petition No. 29252 of 1993, Uittam Singh Negi and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others its well as in writ petition No. 44472 of 1993, Harish Mohan Khanduri v. District Inspector of Schools and others have submitted leading arguments. The counsel appearing in other writ petitions have adopted the arguments submitted by these counsels. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned Additional Advocate General defending the vires of the aforesaid Acts. Since no factual controversy is Involved for consideration for deciding the vires of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, it is not necessary to state the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. It is suffice to say that the appointments of all the petitioners have been made in violation of section 18 of U. P. Act Ho. 5 of 1982 as substituted by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992..
(3.) SRI A. N. Tripathi has challenged the vires of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 on the following grounds : (i) The provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 so far as they completely take away the rights of the Committee of Management to have any say in the matter of appointments of the teachers in the institutions, are violative of Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India. (ii) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts" are violative of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. (iii) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iv) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Act*) are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, in the name of making Regulations for improving the standard of education the Legislature has completely taken away the petitioners' right to manage the institutions. i.e. to say the offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts have been enacted in colourable exercise of legislative power. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in writ petition no. 29252 of 1993 and other connected petitions have mainly contended that U. P. Act No. 24 of 1(992 is violative of Article 254 (i) of the Constitution of India as no Presidential assent has been taken before enforcing the aforesaid Act, as such, the provisions of the said Acts to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as they stood prior to the enforcement of the Constitution of India, are repugnant and void;