- (1.) B. S. Chanhan, J. In this writ petition the main challenge now is to the order dated 10-9-1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the claim of the petitioners as they were not found entitled to the salaries under the provisions of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971. The management also filed a writ petition No. 36580/92 supporting the claim of the petitioners in the other connected writ petition. The factual gamut is revealed as under : There is an institute namely Bhagwan Parshuram Dham Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddhyalaya, Sahanag, Salernpur, Deoria. The said school was previously merely a Junior Hight School and was upgraded in 1982 to High School. Prior to the date of up gradation only 19 posts had been sanctioned by the appropriate authority vide its order dated 29-8-1981. As a consequence of the up gradation, the persons working on the said 19 posts had been absorbed as per the provisions of Chapter II, Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the Act ). Subsequently 19 more posts had been sanctioned vide orders dated 2-12-1988 and 7-11-1990* The said sanction had been granted with a rider that the incumbent* of the said newly created posts shall be paid by the management and the Govern ment shall not be responsible for their salaries etc. The said institution was also given grant-in-aid with effect from 1-4-1991. The petitioners were not paid salaries under the provisions of 1971 Act. The Deputy Director of Education vide impugned order dated 10-9- 1992 found the petitioners non suited as they were found to have been appointed under the provisions of 7-AA and 7-AB of the 1921 Act. The said provisions provide that State shall not be responsible for the salaries etc. for the employees appointed under the said provisions as they would be absolute liability of the management.
(2.) SHRI T. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemen tly challenged the finding of fact reached by the Deputy Director of Education. Impugned order makes it clear that petitioners failed to produce any evidence before the Deputy Director of Education regarding their employment, including the letters of appointment or any material disclosing the procedure and for malities followed while appointing the petitioners. Confronted with this fact situation Mr. Tewari relied upon chart tiled as an Annexure 5 to the supple mentary affidavit before this court. When the said chart was scrutinised thoroughly, I found the most distressing and purturbing facts from it. Some petitioners had been shown in the chart as possessing the qualifications of B. S. , B. Ed. and other eligible qualifications at the relevant time of their appointment but they were miner on the said date. Mr. Tewari could not furnish any explanation whatsoever for filing such forged and fabricated document before me also showing the appointment letters etc. of the petitioners. The sheet-anchor of the w hole claim of the petitioners is the said chart purported to have been prepared by the Managing Committee, the petitioner in the writ petition No. 36580/1992. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners was also not in a position to deny specifically that some of the petitioners were relatives of the office bearers of the management. The Statutes have imposed a complete embargo to give employment to persons falling under this category. Shri T. N. Tewari. learned counsel submits that all the petitioner had not been minor or relatives of the office-bearers of the managing Committee and their cases may be considered. No separate evidence has been filed before this Court, for such petitioners and it is not possible to place any reliance on the said chart. It is, however, beyond my imagination as to why the petitioners have not produced the said documents to prove their case, before this Court, particularly when such crystal clear observation had been given against them by the Deputy Director of Education. Mr. Tewari, did not ask the Court to give some time to place the said material before this Court, instead asked to remand the case to the Deputy Director of Education to examine afresh. I could not find it convincing as there is nothing on record to examine except the said chart, which is certainly not worth putting any reliance on it. There is no compelling circumstance to remand the case.
(3.) IN the case of Andhara State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re i Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "a court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to defend the law from Crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law. " Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabbu, 1994 (2) SCC 481, has observed as under : "it Is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitu tion to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the same of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. ";