Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 13.3.1995 and 10.11.1995, Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition and for a mandamus to release the annual increments of the petitioner due from January 1995 and pay the arrears as well as for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's functioning in lecturer's grade and award him selection grade from 1.1.1996. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit in Rashtriya Krishak Evam Audyogic Inter College, Sirsauli, district Bareilly on 14.8.1968. The petitioner has done M.A. in Sanskrit and Hindi in first division and also done Ph.D. In paragraph 2 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner has been continuously teaching intermediate classes of Hindi and Sanskrit since 1974. In paragraph 3, he has alleged that his work and conduct has been good and he has been given awards. On 10.2.1990, the Committee of Management resolved to promote the petitioner as lecturer vide Annexure -2 to the petition. The Management sent the papers recommending promotion of the petitioner on 16.5.1990. It is alleged in paragraph 6 that a criminal case was instituted against the former Principal, the respondent No. 3, in which the petitioner was a prosecution witness as a result of which the respondent No. 3 developed personal grudge against the petitioner and hence after his retirement, he removed the correct entries and instead made adverse entries against the petitioner. The petitioner vide his application dated 25.7.1990 brought this fact to the notice of the Manager for cancellation of the same. True copy of the application dated 25.7.1990 is Annexure -4 to the petition. The Committee of Management on 5.12.1990 accepted the plea of the petitioner and cancelled the adverse entries. True copy of the resolution is Annexure -5.
(2.) IN paragraph 9 of the petition, it is alleged that on the recommendation of the Committee of Management the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 20.2.1991 awarded lecturer's grade to the petitioner from 1.1.1996. True copy of the order is Annexure -6. In paragraph 10, it is stated that thereafter nothing happened till January 1995 and the petitioner was continuously getting his annual increments but suddenly the increment of the petitioner was stopped, and on an application being made by him on 20.2.1995, he was informed by the Manager vide letter dated 13.3.1995 that in the meeting held on 25.1.1995 his increment has been stopped. True copy of the letter dated 13.3.1995 is Annexure -7. The respondent No. 1 sent a notice dated 12.6.1995 to the petitioner stating that the contention of the petitioner that he was teaching intermediate classes since 1974 is wrong and there are cutting in the entries in the petitioner's service record and the petitioner has concealed the material facts. True copy of the notice is Annexure -8. The petitioner sent his reply dated 27.6.1995 denying the allegations and reiterating that he has been teaching intermediate classes since 1974. True copy of the reply is Annexure -10 to the petition. When no heed was paid to his representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being writ petition No. 23870 of 1995. This Court disposed of that petition with a direction that the petitioner may make a representation in that connection which should be decided within two months. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation, true copy of which is Annexure -11 to the petition which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.11.1995 vide Annexure -12 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.
(3.) I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 10.11.1995. There is no finding whether the petitioner has been teaching intermediate classes in the subject concerned for ten years continuously. The petitioner has claimed the benefit of the Government Order dated 28.2.1990. The case of the Management in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was appointed as a general teacher and not for teaching any language. It is their further case that the petitioner never taught classes 11 or 12. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, it is alleged that one Kanti Swarup Vaishya taught Hindi and Sanskrit to classes 11 and 12 up to 1993, and thereafter Shri Ram Autar Sharma has been doing so and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the G.O. dated 28.2.1990.;