- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17. 8. 2007, passed by the Manager of the Committee of Management by which the petitioners' services as Part Time Teacher have been terminated. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in Commerce on 1. 2. 1999, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in Mathematics on 8. 10. 1999 and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Part Time Teacher, Science on 3. 9. 2003 under Section 7aaof U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioners' case is that the new Committee of Management came into power in May, 2007 and a decision was taken to terminate the services of all the Part Time Teachers by resolution dated 30,5. 2007, which order was challenged by means of a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27735 of 2007 in which this Court granted an interim order dated 20. 6. 2007. Subsequently on the statements of Committee of Man agement to the effect that notice dated 30. 6. 2007 has been withdrawn, this Court vide order dated 23. 7. 2007 dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 17. 8. 2007, the services of the petitioners have been terminated by giving following two reasons. (1) According to Rule 3 (2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, no male teacher shall be eligible for appointment in Girls School. (2) In the subjects for teaching of which the petitioners were appointed, female teachers have now become available.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners challenging the aforesaid two grounds mentioned in the impugned order, contended that the provisions of Rules 1983 are not applicable with regard to appointment of a Part Time Teacher. With regard to second ground, it is contended that no selection has been made of any female teacher therefore, the second reason is also non-existent. LEARNED Counsel for the respondents refuting the submission of the learned Counsel for the petition ers, submitted that even though the 1983 Commission Rules are not applicable but there is prohibition for appointment of male teachers in girls institution. It has been further contended that appointment of the, petitioners was not made in-accordance with the relevant Government Orders regulating the service condi tions of Part Time Teacher hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any protec tion. He further submits that earlier Government Order issued in 1986 regulated the service conditions and since the petitioners' appointment was not made following the procedure prescribed under law, they cannot claim for any protection. It was further contended that those Part Time Teachers who have been appointed without following the procedure prescribed, the Management is fully competent to terminate their services. Certain allegations against the male teachers have also been made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Committee of Management, Ave considered the submissions and perused the record.;