Arun Tandon - (1.) -Standing counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List in the third week of October, 2006.
(2.) A post of Lecturer in Physics was requisitioned in respect of the vacancy available at Mahraj Singh Inter College, Bahraich. The petitioner has been selected against the said post by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. Accordingly, the panel was intimated to the District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich. The District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich by means of his order dated 29.3.2006 has stated that a teacher appointed to teach Physics in the institution has filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and has obtained an interim order, therefore, petitioner cannot be offered appointment against the post for which he has been recommended. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. This Court by means of order dated 28.7.2006 required the District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich to remain present before this Court with all relevant records inasmuch as complete details were not indicated in letter dated 29.3.2006. Today the District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich has produced a copy of the writ petition filed before the Lucknow Bench by Sri Deepak Kumar Tiwari as well as copy of the order passed therein. It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the said writ petition, which read as follows : "5. That since 9.10.1986 their existence and prohibition against sanction of additional post in privately managed recognized aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State of U. P. that as a consequence of the aforesaid prohibition even though over the preceding 17 years there has been a tremendous increase in the students a strength and consequently the number of approved sections in each of the aforesaid institution, no additional post have been sanctioned by the State Government for meeting the additional teaching requirement on account of the increases in student strength. 6. That in order to meet the aforesaid eventuality the State Government issued a Government order dated 11.10.1999 making alternative arrangement for meeting additional teaching requirement in such educational institutions, on account of sanction of additional section, but no additional posts have not been sanctioned/created. The true copy of the Government order dated 11.10.1999 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-2 to this writ petition. 7. That the Government order dated 11.10.1999 envisages the creation of a pool of subject expert in each of the region of the State for meeting additional teaching requirement in such educational institution. 12. That since the petitioner's appointment has been made as subject expert Physics for intermediate classes and in pursuance of appointment, the petitioner is teaching Physics subject in Inter classes and the petitioner is also working as per time table of the college all the works indicated or directed by Principal of the college like invigilation works, supervision work during course of examination half yearly or annually board and the petitioner has received all remuneration checking of the copies of U. P. Board Examination, meaning thereby the petitioner is performing all the duties as other regular lecturers of the college are performing, there is no dissimilarity in the working of petitioner with other lecturers."
(3.) REFERENCE has also been made to paragraph 29 of the writ petition to an interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench whereby it has been directed that the subject experts may not be replaced by any other candidate. It may further be recorded that appointment of such subject expert was limited to three years initially and thereafter it was provided that fresh recruitment may be made on the post of subject expert. This part of fixed term appointment was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 6319 of 2003 before the Lucknow Bench as well as by means of Writ Petition No. 35653 of 2003 before this Court. The writ petitions were allowed and it was provided that termination of employment of subject expert merely on expiry of prescribed period is legally not justified.;