J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) By means of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1-1-1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Eeducation respondent No. 1 (Annexure 5) and the appointment of respondent No. 4.
(2.) The allegations made in the writ petition in short are that upon the retirement of Sri Janki Nath Tripathi, a permanent vacancy of a Sanskrit teacher in L. T. Grade in the Sarvarya Mahavidyalaya, Prayag, Madhwapur, Allahabad occurred. The aforesaid vacancy and other vacancies for appointment of Sanskrit teacher in L T. grade and other grade were advertised on 26-9-1979 for being filled up by direct recruitment. Upon a representation by the petitioner and some other teachers of the institution, the District Inspector of Schools ordered that the appointment in L T. grade in the institution through promotion was less than 40 per cent the vacancy in the post of a trained Sanskrit teacher in L. T. grade be filled up by promotion from against the teachers with prescribed qualifications on the basis of seniority-cum-merits. One Girja Shanker Pandey was appointed in C. T. grade in pursuance of the advertisement by direct recruitment. He was not a teacher already working in L. T. grade in the institution and was not eligible for the purpose of appointment as a Sanskrit teacher in the aforesaid vacancy of Sri Janki Nath Tripathi nor Sri Pandey was approved in the absence of the recommendation by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Therefore, merely because Sri Pandey was illegally teaching Sanskrit, the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri Janki Nath Tripathi, could not be deemed to have been filled up. Section 16-F of the Act prohibited teaching of Sanskrit subject in High School classes by a teacher not duly appointed in the L. T. grade.
(3.) The Committee of Management through a resulution dated 17-1-1981 decided to promote and appoint Sri Kamta Prasad Misra, respondent No. 4 in the vacancy in question and submitted proposal to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. According to the petitioner he was not eligible for the post of Sanskrit teacher for High School classes in L. T. grade as he did not have the minimum qualification for Sanskrit teacher as prescribed under Chapter V Appendix-A of the list of minimum qualifications. The minimum qualifications for such a teacher is trained B. A. with Sanskrit. Sri Kamta Prasad Misra was not a B. A. with Sanskrit as such was not eligible for promotion in the aforesaid vacancy. Only the petitioner could be considered as he was the seniormost eligible teacher possessing the required qualifications being M. A. with Hindi and B. A. with Sanskrit, Hindi and Ancient History as his subjects. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 9-2-1981 (Annexure 4) accepted petitioner's plea and rejected the proposal sent by the Committee of Management for the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifications. The Committee of Management filed an appeal under Regulation 7 of Chapter II of the Regulations before the respondent No. 1 who by the impugned order dated 1-1-1982 (Annexure 5) allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools and accepted the proposal sent by the Committee of Management for appointing respondent No. 4 as a teacher in L. T. grade. According to the petitioner the vacancy in question was earmarked for a trained Sanskrit teacher in L. T. grade and not for Hindi or Hindi-cum-Sanskrit teacher as mis-understood by respondent No. 1. The other ground of challenge is that Sri Girja Shankar Pandey, who was appointed as a Sanskrit teacher in C. T. grade by direct recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement published in 26-9-1979, was not competent to teach Sanskrit in L. T. grade in Hindi School classes. His teaching to the High School classes in Sanskrit was unauthorized and against the mandate of the Statute and the post of the Sanskrit teacher remained vacant Sri Girja Shankar Pandey was not already working in the institution having been appointed by direct recruitment in C. T. grade much after the occurrence of vacancy in question and as such was not eligible for promotion. He also not possess the requisite experience and length of service as required under Regulation 6. In short, the case is that the mere fact of teaching Sanskrit by a C. T. grade teacher, appointed by direct recruitment after the occurrence of vacancy would not have an effect of filling up the vacancy of the Sanskrit teacher in L. T. grade which occurred on account of the retirement of Sri Janki Prasad Tripathi. It is further claimed that respondent No. 1 has wrongly assumed that it was open to an institution to get any subject in any class taught by any teacher in any grade.;