C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a L. T. Grade teacher on 27-12-1974. On 24-7-1976 she applied for fixation of pay in the lecturer grade in view of the G.O. dated 3-10-1974. The committee of Management of the said School recommended the same on 21-5-1977. Respondent No. 1, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, III region, Bareilly, approved the said scale (Annexure VII). Thereafter on 30-6-1989 the ex-principal retired. Charge of the said office was made over to the petitioner on 28 3-1990 (Annexure VIII). The petitioner has claimed that the resolution of the Committee of Management was adopted to continue her in the said office uptil further orders.
(2.) Two writ petitions were filed by Smt. Indrani Pathak, respondent No. 5, which were dismissed but direction was issued to respondent No. 1 to dispose of the dispute within two months. The said order was passed by a Division Bench of this court by an order dated 8-5-1990 Annexure X). On 17-5-1990 the Committee of Management, respondent No, 4, passed an order asking the respondent No. 5 to receive the charge of the office of Principal (Annexure X-B). On 28-5-1990 the respondent No. 1 asked the Committee of Management to hand over charge of Principal to the senior most teacher (Annexure X-C). In compliance of the order of this Court respondent No. 1 issued a letter to the Committee of Management to produce all the relevant papers and distributed a questionnaire to both the contestants, namely, petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and fixed a date of hearing and ultimately on 6-5-1991 passed an order (Annexure XX III) in the following direction (1) approval of the petitioner by the then Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 21-5-1977 was held to be not proper as according to her the petitioner was a teacher in Home science but no post of that category was sanctioned in the Intermediate level. (2) The said approval was given against a sanctioned post of Mathematics (3) G. O. dated 3-10-1974 is applicable to candidates who were in service on or prior to 3-10-1974 and hence the provision is not applicable to the petitioner. (4) She was found to be not properly qualified in home science as she appeared in one subject in B. A, (Home Science) and also M. A. in the same year. (5) As she was appointed in the year 1974 she was not senior to respondent No. 5. Smt. Indrani Pathak who was appointed in 1972. So the seniority of Smt. Indrani Pathak was declared and an order was passed for the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner in lecturer grade since 20-11-1976. A separate order for recovery was sent (Annexure XXIV), to the Committee of Management who calculated the amount of recovery to the extent of Rs. 42,029/- and passed an order accordingly for deduction from her pay at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month (Annexure XXV). The present writ petition has been filed challenging all the orders affecting the service of the petitioner, her seniority and against the order of recovery.
(3.) The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is M. A. in Economics, B. A. in Home Science and B. Ed. Accordingly she was found to be fit to teach Home Science in the School and an order to that effect was passed by the then Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and approved the salary of the lecturer grade to her (Annexure VII).;