A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 3rd July, 1980 purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in Manohar Bhushan Inter College, Bareilly. The order has been passed in pursuance of a resolution dated 30-6-80 passed by the Managing Committee of the respondent college which states that the petitioner's appointment being contrary to the procedure laid down for selection of teachers under Section 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act, the same was liable to be ignored and no approval of the District Inspector of Schools for terminating the appointment of the petitioner was required under Section 16-G (3) of the said Act The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned resolution aswell as the order passed in pursuance thereto are both manifestly unsustainable in law. He has accordingly prayed for quashing of the same.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis under a letter issued to him on 2-1-74 by the Manager of the institution stating that the petitioner was being appointed in pursuance of the interview held by the Principal and on the basis of the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on a temporary basis as a Science teacher. This letter was closely followed by another letter dated 11-4-74, stating that in supersession of the previous letter dated 2-1-74, the petitioner's appointment was being converted into one on probation for one year with effect from 2-1-74 in view of the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 24-3-74 and approval of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11-4-74. Subsequently at the meeting of Managing Committee dated 15-12-74, the petitioner was confirmed in the said post with effect from 2-1-75. THE petitioner thereafter continued to function uninterruptedly as an Assistant Teacher for nearly six and half years until the impugned resolution was passed. The only ground for terminating the services of the petitioner, as stated in the resolution dated 30-6-80 referred to above, is that the appointment was made without following the procedure laid down in regulations framed in Section 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act. No other ground has been stated in the said resolution. The contention of the petitioner is that even if it be assumed that the petitioner's appointment was not strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down for regular appointments through the selection committee, his appointment, both one on 2-1-74 and other on 11-4-74 could be treated to be a temporary appointment as contemplated by the first proviso to Sec. 16-F (1) (as it then stood).
(3.) FOR convenience sake, the relevant part of Section 16-F, as it stood in 1974, is being reproduced here :- " 16-F (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognized institution unless he- (a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under subsection (1) of Sec. 16-E ; (b) has been recommended by Selection Committee constituted under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may, of the said section and approved, in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director Education, and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector : Provided that if the Inspector is satisfied that for any institution no candidate, who possesses all the prescribed qualifications, is available for appointment he may permit the institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Such period may be extended with the prior approval of the Inspector " . The first appointment was, as mentioned above a temporary appointment made with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Before the same came to an end, another letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 11-4-74 after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. This again can be traced to the first proviso to Section 16- F, though it could not result into a substantive appointment in view of the fact that the procedure laid down under section 16-F (1) was not followed. Be that as it may, the petitioner was admittedly working as a teacher continuously in virtue of orders dated 2-1-74 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and 11-4-74 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) until the passing of the impugned order. Even if, therefore, the second appointment could not be legally treated as a substantive appointment, it could, in any case, be deemed as temporary appointment having received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 11-4-74.;