- (1.) The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 11.2.1993 and 22.2.1993 and 22.2.1993 whereby the names of certain teachers have been approved for appointment. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the petitioners is that there is an Institution by the name of Kanhaiya Lal Babu Ram Vidyapith Junior High School, Sheoli, Kanpur Dehat. The Committee of Management of the Institution through its letter dated 15.11.1992 applied before the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat-respondent no. 1 for approval to advertise three posts of Assistant Teachers and two posts of Peons. The permission was granted through letter dated 7.1.1993. On 10.1.1993 an advertisement is stated to have been published in the newspaper, namely, 'Dainik Karmyug Prakash' inviting applications up to 22.1.1993 followed by interview. The Management through its letter dated 21.1.1993 sent a letter to the District Basic Education Officer, Kanapur Dehat for appointing a Supervisor for the selection of two peons and three Teachers in the Institution. The interview of the candidates was held and thereafter a merit ist was prepared by the selection committee on 28.1.1993. Thereafter on 29.1.1993 a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management recommending the names of the petitioners for appointment as Peons. Appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 30.1.1993 and the petitioners also joined the post on 1.2.1993. Thereafter the papers were sent to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for his approval for the purposes of payment of salary under the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. However, by the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 the District Basic Education Officer declined to grant approval and has set aside the selection of Class IV and accordingly termination order was also issued on 22.2.1993, filed as Annexure-10 and 11 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Shri D.B. Tripathi holding brief of Shri R.K. Verma for the respondents no. 3 and 4.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were duly selected and their appointment as Paricharak (Class IV) was also approved by the Committee of Management and thereafter the appointment letter dated 30.1.1993 was issued and they also joined service on 1.2.1993. It is also submitted that only a formal approval is required from the respondent no. 1. The contention further is that the observation in the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 that out of three class IV employees two have submitted their resignation and the posts itself came to an end and thereafter there was no vacancy against which the petitioners could have been appointed is without any basis.;