D. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) SHRI Chitragupta Post Graduate College, Mainpuri, was granted temporary recognition by the Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, vide his order dated 10.8.1990 with effect from 1.7.1990 for a period of one year in the subjects of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany. Thus, the institution was permitted to start classes in the aforesaid subjects for preparing the students to take examination in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany. As the students had to be prepared both for theoretical and practical papers, temporary teachers, Lab Assistants and Lab Peons were appointed by the institution. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were granted appointment as Lab Assistants in the four subjects and the petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 were appointed as Lab Peons in those subjects to prepare the students for practical examination and were being paid their salary by the Management from its own account. Subsequently, the University granted permanent recognition with effect from 1.7.1995, but when the Management sought to terminate their services in November, 1994, they obtained interim orders. Similarly, teachers namely Manoj Kumar Kudaisiya, Dr. Shalni Pandey and Sudhakar Dutt Dwivedi were also appointed on temporary basis by the Management. The Director of Higher Education created four posts of Lab Assistants and four posts of Lab Peons in the institution vide order dated 30.3.1999. the petitioners claimed absorption/regularization on those posts. Even the Management of the institution through its letter dated 1.2.2000 requested the respondent No. 1 to absorb the petitioner in the said posts as they had been working since 1991 or later and the Management did not wish to make any other appointment on those posts. This was followed by subsequent letters also. The petitioners, having failed to receive any reply, preferred Writ Petition No. 24614 of 2000 claiming regularization/absorption. This writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated l5.5.2001, requesting the Director of Higher Education to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. By the impugned order dated 5.11.2001, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that their appointment was de hors the rules and without prior approval of the Director. It is apparent that all the petitioners were appointed immediately after the grant of temporary recognition and each has a much higher qualification than what is provided under the First Statutes of the University. The following chart would give the minimum qualification, actual qualification possessed, the date of appointment and the length of service etc. Petitioner No. Post Qualifi-cation Required Under Statute 20.06 Qualification Possessed by Petitioners Date of appoint-ment Depart-ment Appointing Authority Length of service 1. Lab Assis-tant Inter-mediate B.Sc.(1988) Phy. Chem. Maths. 23.8.1991 Physics Committee Of Manage-ment 14 years 2. Lab Assis-tant Inter-mediate B.Sc.(1988) Chemistry Zoology, Botany 23.8.1991 Zoology -do- 14 years 3. Lab Assis-tant Inter-mediate B.Sc.(1989) Chemistry, Zoology, Botany 23.8.1991 Botany -do- 14 years 4. Lab Assis-tant Inter-mediate Inter-mediate 23.8.1991 Chem-istry -do- 14 years 5. Lab peon/boy Class V Class VIII 23.8.1991 Physics Principal 14 years 6. Lab peon/boy Class V Class VIII 23.8.1991 Zoology -do- 14 years 7. Lab Peon/boy Class V Class VIII 22.10.94 Botany -do- 11 years 8. Lab Peon/boy Class V Class VIII 23.8.1991 Chem-istry -do- 14 years A perusal of the chart shows that all the petitioners were duly qualified and have been working for the last 11 to 14 years. As mentioned above, Sri Manoj Kumar Kudaisiya was also appointed as temporary Lecturer in Mathematics along with other teachers in different subjects. In accordance with the requirement of law, statement of the staff is sent by the institution to the University wherein names of both, teachers and the petitioners are duly mentioned. A copy of one such chart for the session 1995-96 is also enclosed as Annexure-11 to the petition. There is no denial or even suggestion on behalf of the respondents that all the petitioners and similarly situated teachers were working in the institution since their appointment and nobody had been appointed on the post created/sanctioned by the order dated 30.3.1999.
(3.) FROM a perusal of Annexures-1, 2, 5 and 6 it is apparent that even before creation of the posts, the Management and the Principal had sent letters to the District Inspector of Schools, District Employment Officer and the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Education asking them to take part in the selection of Lab Assistants and Peons. These allegations have not been denied. It is also apparent that a Selection Committee was constituted as contemplated in clause (6) of Article 20.03 of the First Statutes of the University. However, none of the three officials took part in the selection. No doubt the aforesaid officials were a necessary part of the Selection Committee as contemplated by the aforesaid provision, neither the institution nor the petitioners could have forced them to take part in the proceedings. The contention of the learned standing counsel that there was no question of their taking part as no post had, in fact, been created till then, is off the mark. Once the temporary recognition was granted, the provisions of the State University Act, 1973 and the Statutes became applicable to the institution and therefore it was incumbent upon the authorities to have taken part in the selection proceedings. After the creation of the posts, as is evident, the Management through its letter dated 1.2.2000, had sought the approval of the Director and thus had complied with the requirement of clause (4) of Statute 20.03. Thus, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioners was absolutely de hors the rules. Assuming that the appointment of the petitioners was irregular, but it is not denied that they have been working satisfactorily for the last about 14 years. Let us examine the trend of the Courts in such circumstances.;