- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Sushila Devi Rajendra Lal Memorial Nav Bharat Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Titauli, District Muzaffarnagar is a recognized educational institution and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said institution was initially recognized upto class VIIth standard. The petitioner claims that she was appointed by means of appointment letter dated 2nd of December, 1986 as a teacher in the pay-scale of Rs. 450-720 upto 20th of May, 1987. The services of the petitioner were terminated by letter dated 8th of May, 1989 w. e. f. 15th of May, 1985 issued by the Manager of the institution (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). This order of termination was challenged in writ petition No. Nil of 1989 and the operation of the said order was stayed by way of interim measure till a regularly selected candidate or reserve pool teacher becomes available for appointment on the post or services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law, whichever is earlier. Copy of the said interim order dated 23rd of May, 1989 has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The Manager of the institution subsequently by order dated 9th of June, 1990 dismissed the services of petitioner as the same was no longer required and offered one month's salary in lieu of notice. Challenging the legality and validity of the said order the present writ petition has been filed. The contention of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with as till date no duly selected candidate has been recommended nor a reserve pool teacher has become available for appointment on the post in question. In the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner is still holding the post. An interim order was passed by this Court to the effect that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with in case a regularly selected candidate has not joined the post or a reserve pool teacher has not been appointed.
(2.) TWO sets of counter-affidavit have been filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the institution, Shri Nepal Singh, the Manager of the Committee of Management has taken stand that the institution is not governed by the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act and that the petitioner has committed perjury in as much as the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Annexure 3, a letter purporting to have been issued from the office of the District Inspector of Schools addressed to the Manager dated 28th of August, 1987 is a forged and fictitious document, according to the said respondent. The further defence is that salary was paid to the petitioner by the Management from its own fund. The resignation of Shri Satyaveer Singh, in whose vacancy the petitioner claims that she was appointed was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the petitioner was appointed without following the prescribed procedure. The procedure prescribed for appointment of teacher by the Removal of Difficulties Order was not followed in the case of petitioner. The pith and substance is that petitioner's appointment dehors the rule governing the selection and appointment and was not on a sanctioned post. Salary was being paid to the petitioner by Committee of Management and as such by means of a writ petition no relief can be claimed against the Committee of Management which is not a statutory body. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Nepal Singh sworn on 26th of July, 1990 it has been stated that Shri Satyaveer Singh was working as a surplus and on all the nine sanctioned posts eligible persons were working and as such no vacancy was caused on account of cessation of employment of Shri Satyaveer Singh. Para 9 is reproduced below : "that the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. The petitioner was not selected by any Selection Committee and the question of sending the recommendation does not arise. There is no provision for seeking the approval of the District Inspector of Schools and it was only an Information given to the District Inspector of Schools. The approval of the District Inspector of Schools has no legal sanctity. " In counter-affidavit of Shri Vijai Pal Singh filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the institution in question is a recognized School and the teachers and staff of the Junior High School were being paid salary by the State Government as they were Government by the Payment of Salaries Act. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the payment of salary to the teachers of High School is being made by the Manager of the College and not by the office of the respondent No. 1 inasmuch as the High School was not covered under the Payment of Salaries Act. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit the contents of para 9 of the writ petition have been denied, in para 9 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee appointing the petitioner as C. T. grade teacher vide his letter dated 28th of August, 1987. In reply, in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that no such letter was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar.
(3.) FROM the above discussion, it emerges that the petitioner has filed a letter dated 28-8-1987 which is a forged and fabricated document according to both the respondents. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 stating that no such letter was issued from the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar cannot lightly be disbelieved. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as she has filed a forged and fabricated document. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel as well as the Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this very ground as the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Apart from above, it is clear that the petitioner was not appointed on any sanctioned post nor any procedure was followed before offering her the appointment, as prescribed by law. Both the respondents have come out with the case that salary to High School teachers was being paid by the Management out of its own resources. In view of the fact, the petitioner was not appointed against an existing post nor procedure was followed while offering appointment to the petitioner on the post in question, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.;