- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction setting aside order dated 08-04-2003, passed by the respondent No. 3, Principal of Kishan Vidyalaya Inter College, Laksar, District Haridwar (hereinafter referred as the College), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated under Section 16-G read with Regulations 25 of Regulations framed under the U. P Intermediate Edu cation Act, 1921.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case, as nar rated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner Rishi Pal was qualified for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade and was ap pointed on said post in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 2300 vide order dated 30th August 1992, passed by respondent No. 1. The said appointment was made under Chapter II- Regulation 9-A of the U. P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on ad hoc basis. Petitioner is teaching continu ously in the institution, since then. It is alleged by the petitioner that vide im pugned order dated 08-04-2003, the Principal of the College terminated serv ices of the petitioner vide impugned or der on the ground that one Jaydhwaj Kumar, Assistant Teacher, was to be reverted back to the C. T. Grade, and as such, the petitioner has to go from said post. Further, alleging that the petitioner was not in the C. T. Grade, and as such, due to the reversion of Jaydhwaj Kumar, his services could not have been termi nated, the termination order is chal lenged by the petitioner claiming that he is entitled to continue on the post, till the regularly selected candidate is ap pointed, against said post. The respondents contested the petition and filed their separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated that the appointment of Jaydhwaj Kumar in L. T. Grade was an ad hoc promotion from C. T. Grade and a post fell vacant in the C. T. Grade against which the petitioner Rishi Pal was appointed (on ad hoc basis) in the year 1992. However, the ad hoc promo tion of said Jaydhwaj Kumar was not regularized. Consequently, vide order dated 18-10-2002, Jaidhwaj Kumar was reverted back to his original post in C. T. Grade, as such, the petitioner had to go from the post held by him. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were termi nated. However, it is admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of re spondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Cadre of C. T. Grade was declared dying Cadre vide Government Order dated 11-08-1989. But, the impugned order, passed by the Principal of the College, was de fended by the education authorities on the ground that Jaydhwaj Kumar had to be reverted back to his original position and petitioner on the basis of ad hoc appointment could not have continued on the post.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 i. e. the Prin cipal of the College, it is stated that the petitioner's appointment was totally tem porary and ad hoc, and he has no right to continue on the post. Stating the same fact, as stated in the counter affi davit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, re spondent No. 3 also stated that the pe titioner was actually appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 - 2040, which was a C. T. Scale and not the L. T. Scale (Rs. 1400 - 2300 ). It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the Principal of the College (respondent No. 3) that the pe titioner's work was never found up to the mark, as he indulged in acts of indiscipline, time and again. It is also stated that termination order of the pe titioner was, infact, consequence of re version of Jaydhwaj Kumar (who was earlier promoted in L. T. Grade) back to his original post. Clarifying the same, it is stated in the counter affidavit of re spondent No. 3, that the vacancy avail able to the petitioner was not a substan tive vacancy, rather it was a 'falit RIKTI' (resultant vacancy ). Respondent No. 4, the Manager of the College, who was impleaded dur ing the pendency of writ petition, has also filed his counter affidavit and stated the same facts, as above, that in consequence of ad hoc promotion of Jaydhwaj Kumar in L. T. Grade, in the year 1992, the petitioner was appointed in his place on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 - 2200. It is further reiterated that since Jaydhwaj Kumar's regularization in L. T. Grade was not approved vide order dated 18-10-2002, passed by respondent No. 1, as such Jaydhwaj Kumar was to be reverted back to his position. Resultantly the petitioner has to go from service, as he was holding the post on ad hoc basis. Admitting that the C. T. Cadre was declared dying Cadre, vide Government Order dated 11-08-1989, it is clarified that the sub stantive posts held by the C. T. Grade teachers were given pay scale of the L. T. Grade. Defending the impugned order, passed by the Principal of the College, terminating the services of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner has no right to continue on the post held by him, on ad hoc basis, particularly, when a person having lien in substantive post is reverted back to said post.;