- (1.) B. S. Chanhan, J. The instant petition is an example which shows how the people consider the State exchequer as a bounty and stake their claim for having a share in the loot. The petitioner joined as Assis tant Teacher in Sri T. B. Inter College, Firozabad with effect from 1-2-1989 and the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was approved by the respondent, D. I. O. S. Firozabad. A substantive post of Lecturer in Chemistry became vacant on 10-5-1990 as the incumbent on the post attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner was promoted on the said post of Lecturer in Chemistry on 16-7-1990, but the petitioner was not paid the salary in the Lecturer Grade and a dispute was raised regarding the promotion of the petitioner by Sri Anil Kumar Sharma. Thus, the matter was adjudicated upon by the Regional Deputy Director of Educa tion, Agra, who decided the dispute vide judgment and order dated 25th July, 1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, vide the said judgment and order held that the petitioner was appointed in C. T. Grade with effect from 1-2- 1989 and his promotion/appointment in the Lecturer Grade in Chemistry is justified and further directed the respondent, D. I. O. S. to approve the promotion/appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16-7- 1990. The aforesaid order dated 25-7-1994 was not complied with by the respondent, D. I. O. S. and, thus the instant petition was filed for ensuring the compliance of the said order dated 25-7-1994 and for further direction of the payment of entire arrears of salary so the petitioner with effect from 1-7-1990.
(2.) ACCORDING to the provisions of Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the Act), the appointment of ad hoc teachers is permissible, by following a particular procedure. The ad hoc appointment can be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion. The preferential right is to fill up the vacancy by promoting the senior most teacher who is eligible in consonance of the provision of Rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, which provides for the promotion of a teacher working in C. T. Grade, possessing the minimum qualification in the concerned subject and at least having five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy. In the instant case the peti tioner was appointed in C. T. Grade with effect from 1-2-1989. The vacancy became available on 10-5-1990. Thus, the petitioner was hardly having an experience of only one year and three months and in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 9 the petitioner was not eligible to fall within the zone of consideration for promotion on the said post. Thus, even by no means of imagination it can be held that the petitioner would have been promoted or his occupancy of the post of Lecturer in Chemistry cant be termed by promotion. The petitioner has averred that the post was advertised but no suitable candidate was available and the post was offered to the petitioner by promotion. The petitioner has not impleaded the Committee of Manage ment of the said Institution which could have been asked to produce the material before this Court to see whether the post was advertised or not and whether there was some eligible candidate available for the post or not. The petitioner has not impleaded the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, whose judgment and order dated 25-7-1994 are sought to be enforced as this Court could have asked the said Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra as on what basis the claim of the petitioner had been accepted as promotion/appointment, I am of the considered opinion that the said parties are necessary parties in this litigation to adjudicate upon the issue involved herein to reach at a correct conclusion. Reliance can safely be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has ever applied for direct appointment and he had faced the Selection Committee and was found most suitable candidate and was duly selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry. Thus, the occupancy of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Chemistry cannot be considered even by way of direct recruit ment, as Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is not direct recruit. In view of the above, the only inescapable conclusion one has to reach is that the petitioner was neither appointed nor promoted to the post of Lecturer and thus his occupancy on the said post is not only illegal but void as Section 16 (2) of the Act of 1982 provides that every appointment of a teacher in contraven tion of the provision of the Act shall be void. In the case of State of U. P. v. U. P. State Law Officers' Association, AIR 1994 SC 1654, the Supreme Court has observed as under :- ". . . . . . . . . . appointments may be made purely on personal or poli tical consideration and be arbitrary. The fact that they are made by public bodies cannot vest them with additional sanctity. Every appointment made to a public office, howso ever made, is not necessarily vested with public sanctity. There is, therefore, no public interest involved in saving all appointments irrespective of their mode. From the inception some engagements and contracts may be the product of opera tion of the spoiled system. There need be no legal anxiety to save them. "
(3.) SIMILARLY, in the case of S. P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 (1) SCC 1, the Supreme Court observed as under : "the Courts of law meant for imparting of justice between the par ties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is biased on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. In the case of Andhra State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re : Rolling Mills, 1994 (2) SCC 647 the Supreme Court has observed as under : "a court of equity, when exercising ;its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to prevent the law from crafty evasions and subtleties invested to evade law. ";