Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment dated September 9, 1991, passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 18th July, 1990 was quashed but the writ petition was dismissed as regards the claim of Kailash Nath Shukla for nwindamus commanding the respondents to pay him salary for the post on which he was appointed by the Committee of Management.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Nagrik Inter College, Janghai, district Jaunpur is a recognised institution (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the institution, one Chandra Shekhar Mishra was teacher in L. T. grade. He retired from service on 30.6.1989 and one Sri Rama Kant, L. T. grade teacher was promoted to the lecturer's grade. The two posts fell vacant in the college. One was for teaching Sanskrit and the other was for teaching the general subjects. The Management of the institution advertised the posts in the newspaper on 1.6.1989 inviting applications for two posts of L. T. grade teacher and 25.6.1989 was fixed for interview. On 25.6.1989 separate interviews were held. Kailash Nath Shukla, the writ petitioner-appellant and one R. K. Pandey were issued appointment letters, one for teaching general subjects and another for teaching Sanskrit subject. The papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 26th September, 1989. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, issued a letter to the Committee of Management making queries as to when the vacancy had occurred and when the intimation of vacancy was given to the Commission under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 (in short the Act 1982). In the meantime, the writ-petitioner and Sri R. K. Pandey filed Writ Petition No. 24536 of 1989 in this Court for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary on the basis of their appointment from 25th June, 1989. The writ petition was, however, withdrawn on 11th April, 1990. Nitya Nand Shukla. respondent No. 5, filed Writ Petition No. 12733 of 1990, challenging the selection held on 25th June, 1989 on the ground that only one select-list was to be prepared for both the posts on the basis of quality points and according to such list, he was at serial No. 2 and was entitled for appointment. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9th May, 1990 with a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the representation filed by Nitya Nand Shukla. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Deputy Director of Education decided the representation by his order dated 18th July, 1990. He took the view that in the advertisement published in the newspaper, the vacancy was not notified subjectwise and, therefore, the selection should have been made on the basis of quality points awarded to the candidates not subjectwise, but one single merit list should have been prepared. He held that in one single list on the basis of the quality point, Nitya Nand Shukla was at serial No. 2 and he was entitled to be appointed as L. T. grade teacher in preference to the writ petitioner-appellant Kailash Nath Shukla who had received less quality points than him, and issued a direction to the Management to issue appointment letter to him.
(3.) THE writ petitioner-appellant made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education on 3rd August, 1990 but before the representation could be decided, he filed Writ Petition No. 22185 of 1990, challenging the order of Deputy Director of Education dated 18th July, 1990. It was alleged that first selection was cancelled by the Committee of Management and the post was re-advertised on 25.4.1990. He applied for appointment. THE interview took place on 29.5.1990 and he and one R. K. Pandey were selected on two different posts and they were given appointment letters. THE papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools but no order was passed by him and that he was entitled to salary on the basis of the second selection. In the writ petition, he had Impleaded Nitya Nand Shukla as respondent No. 5. The learned Single Judge held that the appointment made by the Committee of Management was invalid as the vacancy was not notified to the Commission as provided in Section 18 (1) of the Act, 1982. The order of Deputy Director of Education dated 18.7.1990 was quashed but the writ petition was dismissed as none of them were found entitled to receive the salary under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. Aggrieved against the said judgment, Nitya Nand Shukla has filed Special Appeal No. 70 of 1991 and Kailash Nath Shukla, the writ petitioner has filed Special Appeal No. 90 of 1991. In this Judgment Shri Kailash Nath Shukla has been referred to as the appellant and Nitya Nand Shukla as respondent No. 5.;