- (1.) SHOBHA Dikshit, J. These writ petitions arise out of usual tie between two rival contesting teachers for a single post. In the present case, the post in question is that of Lecturer in History.
(2.) VAIDIK Kanya Pathshala Inter Col lege, Lucknow is a recognised Institution under U. P. Intermediate Act, imparting education upto Class XII. It is receiving grant-in-aid for payment of salary to teach ing and non-teaching staff. The provisions of High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Payment of Salaries Act and Commission Act) respectively are applicable to it. The facts of the case as revealed from the pleadings of the parties are that the permanent Principal of the Institution Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava superannuated with effect from 1-7-1987 hence, the seniormost lecturer Smt. Vimla Tandon was promoted on ad hoc basis on the said post and conse quently the post of permanent lecturer in History on which Smt. Vimla Tandon was teaching fell vacant. This vacancy was a short term vacancy as Smt. Vimla Tandon was promoted on the post of the Principal only on adhoc basis and she continued to retain her lien on the post of lecturer. This short term vacancy had to be filled in ac cordance with U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficul ties) Order (Second), 1981, (hereinafter referred to as Removal of Difficulties Order (Second), 1981, issued on 31-7-1. 981 by promotion failing which by direct recruit ment. One Smt. Munni Mehrotra who was the next seniormost teacher in L. T. Grade (History) being eligible was therefore con sidered and recommended by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Lucknow vide her letter dated 6-4-1988 for being appointed/promoted against the said short term vacancy. Unfortunately, Smt. Munni Mehrotra died on 24-8-1988 hence this vacancy remained as such. At this point of time since no other teacher in the Institu tion was duly qualified and eligible for being promoted to the said post, therefore, the Committee of Management decided to fill the same by direct recruitment. Smt. Uma Rani Misra, a qualified teacher was ap pointed directly after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee and an appointment letter to her was issued by the Committee of Management on 17-5-1988 subject to approval by the concerned Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 22-6-1988 accorded approval with the condition that the appoint ment shall continue till a duly selected can didate joins the post of Smt. Vimla Tandon reverts back to the post or till the post be comes substantive, whichever is earlier. Smt. Uma Rani Misra accordingly joined the post on 21-5-1988 and started teaching the subject of History of Classes IX, X, XI and XII in the said Institution. Meanwhile, Smt. Vimla Tandon who was officiating as Principal became permanent on the post of Principal and thereafter superannuated with effect from 30- 6- 1992. The manage ment at this juncture issued a letter dated 30-5-1992 to the petitioner that her services shall not be treated as lawful with effect from 1-7-1992 in terms of the letter of ap proval of the R. I. G. S. dated 22-6-1988 as a substantive vacancy has fallen vacant. It is this communication which has initiated the present litigation.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said communica tion, the petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra filed writ petition No. 3707 (SS) of 1992 praying for quashing of the said letter 30-5-1992 (Annexure 5) inter alia on the ground that she was validly and legally appointed under the provisions of Removal of Dif ficulties (Second) Order, 1981 and since the services of Smt. Vimla Tandon became per manent and regular with effect from 6-4-1991, therefore, her appointment shall be treated to be against the said substantive vacancy and liable to be regularised under Section 33-B of the Commission Act as amended. This Court while entertaining this writ petition passed the following inter im order on 20-6-1992: "standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties. He prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit within a week thereafter. List for orders after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Until further orders or the availability of the regularly selected teacher through Commission, whichever be earlier, the petitioner will be allowed to continue on the post held by her presently. " On moving an application, Smt Kusum Agarwal another teacher teaching in the respondent-Institution was impleaded a party respondent in this writ petition vide orders dated 14-10-1992 and a counter- af fidavit was filed on her behalf stating that the post in question clearly fell within promotional quota and the appointment of the petitioner directly on ad hoc basis against a short term vacancy is wholly il legal. It has further been stated therein that even otherwise the appointment in question being against short term vacancy came to an end on 30-6-1992 in terms of letter of ap pointment dated 17-6- 1988 and the condi tional approval by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 22-6-88. She has further alleged the appointment and approval of Smt. Uma Rani Misra both to be collusive. The provisions of newly added Section 33-B to the Commission Act have also been said to be not applicable to the facts of this case.;