- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners of the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 15/16thjuly, 1991.
(2.) SRI Saraswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) is a recognised institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. There was vacancy of 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution. The Committee of Management is alleged to have notified the vacancy to the U. P, Secondary Education Services Commission under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ). The U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) did not recommend the name of any candidate for being appointed as a teacher. The Com mittee of Management of the institution advertised 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the newspaper 'dainik Jagaran' dated 3rd July, 1991. In the advertisement it was indicated that the applications may be sent to the Manager of the institution by 8th July, 1991. The interview shall take place on 10th July, 1991, for the post of lecturer and on 12th July, 1991, for Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade. The petitioners claim that they had applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and sent the applications to the Manager of the institution. The selection took place on the date specified in the advertisement. They were selected and were permitted to join the institu tion on 15/16th July, 1991. The Manager wrote a letter dated 2-11-1991 to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, intimating him that 14 Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade have been appointed on the vacancies which were existing in the institution. He requested that the approval of ad hoc appointment of the teachers may be given till duly selected candidates by the Commission are appointed. On 19-12- 1991, the District Inspector of Schools asked the Manager to reply as to how many posts had been sanctioned and were vacant. It is alleged that the necessary information's were given but he did not pass the order. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking the relief mentioned above. At the time, when the writ petition was taken, the learned standing counsel submitted that the State Government had banned future selection by the Telex dated 29-6-1991 and G. O. dated 17-7-1991. The selection and the appointment of the peti tioners after the said date was illegal. The writ petition was, however, allowed on the ground, firstly that the imposition of ban in making appoint ments in recognised aided educational institutions by n Telex and G. O. issued by the Government, was invalid and, secondly, the ban was lifted by another G. O. dated 26th September, 1991, and thereafter the petitioners were entitled to function on their posts. The State Government filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench and the judgment was upheld. The State Government filed Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1994 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that there was no power with the State Government to put a blanket ban on the appoint ment of the teachers by the private institutions. The Management could make ad hoe appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships, however, remanded the matter to consider afresh as to whether the detailed procedure as laid down for making the ad hoc appoint ments of teachers by the Management of the institutions, has been followed. The petition has been again placed for consideration of the matter. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and various pleas have been taken challenging the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution.
(3.) I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sabhajit Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the State at length. The various points raised on behalf of the State, challenging the selection of the petitioners are being considered in seriatim. The first submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the State Government had power to impose ban on the appointments even in private institutions which are recognised and aided by the Government. It is contended that the Government has to pay salary to the teachers of aided institutions and if a Government has imposed ban in making appoint ments, it cannot be challenged by the Management. He has placed reliance upon Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U. P. . 1982 Lab 1c 1130. In this case a Radiogram issued by the Government prohibiting managements of the schools from making appointments for a short period was challenged. A Division Bench of this Court has upheld the power of the State Government prohibiting the management from making appointments. It was held that the temporary suspension cannot be considered as depriving of or curtailing the rights of the management. In the present case, however, this aspect is not open for reconsideration. Their Lordships have already taken the view in Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1994 that the State Government cannot put a blanket ban on the management of the institution. It is necessary to refer the observations of their Lordships- "we have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition on the short ground that under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selec tion Boards Act, 1982 (in short as the Act) there was no power with the State Government to put a blanket ban on recruitment of teachers by the private institutions. The learned Single Judge took the view that the management could make ad hoc appoint ments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are of the view that the finding of the learned Single Judge is unexcep tionable. " It may further be noticed that the ban which was imposed by Telex dated 29-6-1991, and G. O. dated 17- 7-1991, was lifted by another G. O. dated 26-9-1991.;