- (1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that Shri Shankar Adarsh Intermediate College, Imlo Pandey Patti district Jaunpur was granted recognition for imparting education in Intermediate classes in various subjects including Hindi by Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. in 1974. In pursuance of this recognition the College issued advertisement inviting applications for the post of lecturers. It is not disputed that a selection committee was constituted and one Sri Kripa Shankar Pandey was appointed on the post of lecturer in Hindi on 1st January 1975. He however intimated the College that as he has been appointed Head -Master in some other school he would not be in a position to carry on after 30th June 1976. After receiving this letter the Committee of Management appointed Petitioner, who had also appeared before selection committee earlier, as lecturer in Hindi on 1st August, 1976. The committee of management informed District Inspector of Schools about Petitioner's appointment but the District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order. Petitioner however continued to work. Controversy arose for the first time when by letter dated 24th December 1977 District Inspector of Schools informed manager of the institution that appointment of Petitioner was approved from 24th December 1976 to 20th May 1977 only. Petitioner made several representations in which he was supported by Committee of Management as well. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order. Subsequently he approached this Court for a direction for payment of salary to Petitioner from 21st May 1977. A counter -affidavit has been filed by the Committee of Management which supports Petitioner. Another counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Inspector of Schools. Stand taken in this counter -affidavit is that as post of lecturer in Hindi was sanctioned by Director of Education with effect from 24th December, 1976, therefore, District Inspector of Schools had granted approval to the Petitioner only from 24th December, 1976 to 20th May, 1977. It is further claimed that as Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed on 24th December, 1976 he could not claim benefit of regularisation Under Section 16GG of U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
(2.) IT is not disputed that Petitioner was appointed on 1st August, 1976. This is a date which admittedly falls between 18th August, 1975 and 30th September, 1976 the two dates relevant for deciding whether a person appointed ad hoc could be regularised or not. Further it is not disputed and is clear also from the appointment letter of Petitioner that he was appointed against clear vacancy. In other words even second requirement of Section 16GG was satisfied. Only difficulty in the way of Petitioner is claim of District Inspector of Schools that post was sanctioned by Director of Education in December, 1976 only. Copy of letter by which post was created has not been filed. It is, therefore, not possible to hold if the post was created with effect from 24th December 1976, or the order was issued on that date. Admittedly Board had granted recognition for teaching Hindi in College in 1974. It has to be assumed, therefore, that it empowered the College to appoint lecturer in that subject. The appointment was made in pursuance of this and not otherwise. It is, therefore, not possible to agree that the appointment was made against a post which was not sanctioned. Post shall be deemed to have been created from the date of recognition. The letter dated 24th December, 1976 has to be read in this context. It was only a formality. Timer gap between recognition and creation has to be ignored. It has to date back to the date of recognition. Even assuming the post was created in 1976 it cannot affect Petitioner. He was appointed by the College against clear vacancy after going through selection committee to the knowledge of District Inspector of Schools. He was not at fault. How can he be made to suffer if there was delay in creation of post. Normally recognition and sanction should have been simultaneous. But recognition was granted by Government whereas post was created by Director of Education. In the system of one department informing other and the other acting in accordance with it some time -gap was bound to occur. That could not recoil on Petitioner. No body can be put to loss for fault of others. The mistake if any was of opposite parties. Consequently Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed against regular post and as he fulfilled all the requirements of Section 16GG, his service stood regularised under that section. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to treat Petitioner as a teacher appointed in substantive vacancy entitled to his salary. Further in pursuance of interim order dated 8th December 1977 passed by this Court Petitioner shall get his salary from 1st July 1977. He shall further be paid salary from 21st May 1977 to 1st July 1977 within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the opposite party.;