- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Whether two petitioners, namely, Dr. Sudha Jaiswal and Smt. Tripti Baneni are entitled to receive salary as lecturers in Degree College, known as Rajarshi Tandon Manila Mahavidyalaya, Allahabad, affiliated to Allahabad Univer sity, Allahabad from the Government of U. P. ? is the question involved in these writ petitions. The answer to the said question depends on the decision of another question as to whether the petitioners have been ap pointed to the sanctioned posts. The fads relevant for resolving the controversy in these writ petitions are given below.
(2.) BY a letter of the Registrar of the Allahabad University (hereinafter referred to as the University) dated 31-3-1975 the decision of the Executive Council of the University, taken at its meeting held on 17- 3-1975, granting permission to five colleges including Rajarshi landon Manila Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the College) to open under-graduate classes in Arts on certain terms and conditions was communicated. The Academic Council of the University at its meeting held on 20-5-1975 assigned eight subjects including Economics and Music (Vocal and Instrumental) to the College for under graduate classes. This resolution of the Academic Council was approved by the Ex ecutive Council vide its resolution No. 180 dated 15-7-1975. According to the letter of the Registrar dated 19-9-1975, the State Government approved the allocation of six out of eight subjects only. In 1979 the Col lege advertised the posts of lecturers in the sanctioned subjects, inviting applications from eligible candidates. Both the petitioners, who applied pursuant to the said advertisement, were appointed as lec turers in Economics and Music and ad hoc basis by the Management of the College on 1-8-1981 with effect from 21-8-1981 the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Com mission Act), which prohibits appointment of teachers in a Degree College by the Management of the College except on the recommendation of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) was enforced. The Commission issued an advertisement on 11-10-1983 inviting applications for the posts of lecturers in the sanctioned subjects in the College, but in view of the Government orders regarding consideration of the proposal for regularisation of the service of ad hoc teachers, no candidate was selected by the Commission. The Management, therefore, vide letter dated 7-10-1985 ap pointed the petitioners as ad hoc lecturers in Economics and Music for the period up to 30-6-1986 or till the date names of the candidates selected by the Commission are received, whichever is earlier, under Section 16 of the Commission Act, which enables the Management to ad hoc appointment of teachers of the Commission does not recommend the names of suitable can didates within the specified period. The said appointment letter contains a condition for payment of the salary to the petitioners only or the approval of their appointment by the Vice-Chancellor and the Government. As the petitioners were not paid salary of lec turers by the Government, they filed Writ Petitions Nos. 4639 of 1991 and 3304 of 1991 before this court for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them salary from month to month as and when it falls due. Prayer for arrears of salary with effect from 1-3-1984 was also made. The Commission Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 2 of 1992, whereby Section 31-C was added, which provides for regularisation of ad hoc appointments made after 3-1-1984 but not later than 30-6-1991. The service of the petitioners was regularised under the said provision, which was communicated to them by the letter dated 20-6-1991. But the Director, Higher Education, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Director) vide his letter dated 3-10-1992 refused to pay salary to the petitioners even after regularisation of their service on the ground that they have been appointed to the posts available under the conditions of af filiation and, therefore, it is the Management's liability to pay them salary, because those posts have not been approved by the Departments for payment of salary. The petitioners, therefore, filed two more Writ Petitions Nos. 45780 of 1992 and 1354 of 1993 for writ of mandamus direction the State Government to pay them salary from month to month including the arrears with effect from 20-6-1992 on which date their service was regularised. Prayer for quashing the letter dated 3-10-1992, whereby the Director declined the payment of salary to the petitioner, has also been made. Panics have exchanged affidavits. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners has made three submis sions in support of the writ petitions, name ly, (i) as a consequences of grant of affilia tion, vide letter dt. 31-3-1975 of the Univer sity to the College with permission to start under-graduate classes in Arts, one post of lecturer in each sanctioned subject stood automatically sanctioned by the Vice-Chancellor by necessary implications and it was not necessary to seek fresh sanction for creation of the posts of lecturers in those subjects from the Vice-Chancellor or the Director; (ii) after the enforcement of the Commission Act the approval of the Vice-Chancellor u/s. 60-1 (vi) of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act) is not required for making appointment of a lecturer m the College; and (ii) in any case after the regu-larisation of the service of the petitioners u/s. 31-C of the Commission Act the petiti oners are entitled to the salary from the Govt. SRI Rakesh Dwivedi, a part from dis puting the aforesaid contentions, has sub mitted that the posts of lecturers in the subjects in which the petitioners have been appointed have never been sanctioned either by the Vice-Chancellor before 1-4- 75 or thereafter by the Director and unless the appointment is made in a sanctioned post me Govt. is not obliged to pay the salary in view of the provisions contained in Chapter XI-A of the Universities Act. Points Nos. 1 and 2 raised by Sri Khare, are interlinked with each other and are, therefore, being dealt with together.;