- (1.) Committee of Management, Gandhi Inter College, Chhata District Mathura through its Manager is before this Court assailing the validity of the decision dated 26.10.2015 passed by Learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34669 of 1997 (Deep Chand Vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region Agra wherein Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the orders impugned in the writ petition dated 17.12.1996 and 02.07.1997 passed by District Inspector of Schools and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration of claim firstly in reference of Deep Chand and to consider the claim of Hari Ram respondent-appellant no. 2, only after claim of Deep Chand, petitioner-opposite party no. 4 is turned down. In the District of Mathura there is a recognized institution known as Gandhi Inter College, Chhata District Mathura. Said institution is duly recognized institution and is governed by the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. II of 1921and the Regulations framed thereunder. Said institution is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. Selection and appointment on the post of Principal /Headmaster/Teacher are to be made strictly as per the provision as contained under U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder.
(2.) In the institution concerned one Jagan Prasad Sharma retired from the institution who was substantively appointed Lecturer and Principal of the institution and after his retirement, vacancy occurred in lecturer's grade was filled up by adhoc promotion granted to one Ganesh Chandra Varsanay from L.T. Grade and in the resultant vacancy, adhoc promotion was offered to one Khem Raj Gaur, who was a confirmed Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade. In consequence of the same a short term vacancy in C.T. Grade came into existence and at the said point of time Committee of Management appointed petitioner-opposite party no. 4, Deep Chand and an order of appointment was also issued to the him on 10.09.1988 and thereafter approval was also accorded to the said appointment by the District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 30.06.1989 w.e.f. 12.09.1988 to 20.09.1989. Consequent to the same, petitioner-opposite party no. 4 was paid salary month by month but thereafter salary of the petitioner was not released in the next academic session 1990-91 and the said inaction of not paying salary, gave cause to petitioner-opposite party no. 4, Deep Chand to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31988 of 1990 and in the said writ petition interim mandamus has been issued either to pay salary or to show cause before this Court whereafter, as per petitioner salary was paid to the petitioner-opposite party no. 4 but was again stopped in August 1991 and thereafter it appears that petitioner-opposite party no. 4 has made representation before the District Inspector of Schools on which District Inspector of Schools passed order on 24.04.1992clarifying that the status of petitioner continues as before and that the Committee of Management was to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner. Thereafter, writ petition filed by the petitioner-opposite party no. 4 was disposed of on 28.04.1995 by following order: "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already marked the District Inspector of Schools by means of an application dated 18.5.1993 and again by application dated 25.5.1993, I am of the view that the end of justice would be fully met if District Inspector of Schools is directed to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law as expounded by the Full bench of this Court in Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management, 1994 3 UPLBEC 1551 within a period of three months if possible. It may be observed that so far enforcement of the directions contained in the letter dated 24.4.1992 of the District Inspector of Schools addressed to the Manager is concerned sufficient it to say that the DIOS has ample powers under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 to levy enforcement of his order but before the direction contained in the letter dated 24.4.1992 is enforced the DIOS shall examine the matter in accordance with law as stated supra. Petition shall stand disposed of subject to above directions. It is made clear that in case it is found that the petitioner was validly appointed in accordance with law, the District Inspector of Schools shall examine his claim for regularization also."
(3.) Record in question reflects that thereafter claim of the petitioner-opposite no. 4 has been examined and rejected by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 02.07.1997, impugned in the writ petition before the Learned Single Judge. During all these period, as CT grade has been declared to be a dying cadre vide Government Order dated 11.06.1989, in this background, Committee of Management has proceeded to send requisition of the said post in question to be filled as L.T. Grade post on 24.02.1992 before District Inspector of Schools and as no regularly selected candidate was made available by the Commission, an adhoc appointment was made by the Committee of Management of Hari Ram, respondent-appellant no. 2, in exercise of authority conferred under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 however as salary has not been released accordingly, Hari Ram, was impelled to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30056 of 1994 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.09.1994 asking the District Inspector of Schools to examine the claim of Hari Ram. Said order reads as follows: "The petitioner shall make representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura respondent no.1, who will consider the following question:- 1. Whether there was sanctioned and vacant post? 2. Whether the intimation of vacancy was given to the Commission before making the appointment? 3. Whether the procedure was followed in making the appointment in accordance with regulations and rules and order as provided under law? 4. Whether the petitioner was qualified for appointment? The representation shall be decided within two months from the date ofmaking the representation as stated above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Committee of Management. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.";