Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 9.7.1988 passed by the Upper Shiksha Nideshak Madhyamik, U.P. Allahabad. Further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the discharge of duties to the petitioner as L.T. grade teacher in Amar Singh Higher Secondary School, Barhya Chowk, Gorakhpur.
(2.) There is a Higher Secondary School named as Amar Singh Higher Secondary Barhya Chowk, Gorakhpur which is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The above school received recognition for High School classes in the year 1973 before that it was a Junior High School. The staff of Junior High School consisted of teachers who were mostly not qualified to be appointed as L.T. grade teachers, only the head master was qualified and thus he was appointed as head master of High School when the school was raised to High School standard. When it was Junior High School was only an aided school and the management used to get some maintenance allowance from the department. The teachers were not being paid full salary, not the salary was paid regularly and therefore, when the school was raised to the High School standard and did not come under the Payment of Salary Act, most of the teachers left the school. At the time of recognition of the school to High School standard, the minimum staff needed for imparting education up to High School classes was granted. The management in the session of 1976-77 was faced with the necessity of staff as the members of the staff had already left the School. The regular appointments were prohibited by the Government order Since 1975 and therefore, the management made ad hoc appointments of six qualified teachers The petitioner was one of them. The petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc I.T grade teacher on 8th July, 1976. The District Inspector of Schools gave his approval of the said appointment on 15.4.1977. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The approval at the first instance was up to 30.6.1977. Only as it was provided under the Removal of Difficulties (1) Order 1975, but under the subsequent orders, the ad-hoc appointment was extended from time to time and continued up to 1977 when under the provision of Section 16GG which was added by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1977 The District Inspector, of Schools made the ad hoc appointment permanent by an order of regularizing it. A copy of the said order dated 29.6.1977 is being filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. After completion of the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed and he was brought under the G.P. Fund Scheme. A copy of the order dated 13.6.1978 has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition After a lapse of ten years of appointment of the petitioner a letter dated 16th November, 1985 was received by the petitioner being a notice of the Director of Education of U.P. under Section 16-E(10) for show cause as to why the appointment of the petitioner may not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted a reply on 30.11.1985. Thereafter the management did not send the pay bill of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools who pass an order on 16.7.1986 for making the payment to the petitioner. The manager of the said institution filed a Writ Petition against the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools which was disposed of by this Court on 4.2.1987. Though this Hon'ble Court had directed to decide the case within six weeks from the date of the order but no information to this effect was given to the petitioner before 22.9.1987. It has been stated that the letters dated 6.6.1987 and 17.8.1986 sent by the Director of Education were not received in time by the petitioner and the hearing was fixed on 17.1 1.1987. The first charge shown in the show cause notice was being pressed by the side of the management for which the petitioner was insisting the Director of Education that a direction be given to the management to produce the attendance register and payment register of 1976-77 so that it may be definitely proved that the petitioner was attending the school since 8.7.1976. The petitioner produced the photostat copies of the Karmahwa School showing that the petitioner did not work in that school in session 1976-77. The Director of Education without looking into the attendance register of 1976-77 of the school in question in 1976-77. As regards creation of post, the management of the institution has pressed before the competent authority that other teachers were already working on the post and they ought to have been allowed to. work and not the petitioner. This clearly goes to show that there was a post and no necessity was there for creation of fresh post. The Director of Education by its order-dated 9.7.1988 has held that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal.
(3.) A finding to this effect has been given that the petitioner has worked in the Karmahawa in the year 1976-77 against the documents on record. The manager of the institution has suppressed the documents of the college in question otherwise it could have been shown that the petitioner Was attending the institution.;