- (1.) S. H. A. Raza and S. R. Alam, JJ. We are of the view that State Government through Secretary Technical Education is a necessary party to the proceedings. It is accordingly, impleaded as respondent No. 4.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel sub mits that there exists no necessity for filing a counter-affidavit and the writ petition can be heard and decided. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher for one year i. e. the end of the academic session or till a regular selection takes place. Section 22-F of the U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 provides that where the Director is satis fied that for any affiliated institution no candidate possessing all the qualifications laid down in the regulations is available for appointment, he may permit the affiliated institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. On ad hoc basis. After the end of the year an order was passed that they will continue to work as ad hoc Assistant Teachers till a regular selection takes place. This Court by means of the order dated 23rd May, 1990 while issuing notice to the respondents passed the following orders:- "in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondents not to dis pense with the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner for a period of four months or till the a vailabilky of a selected candidate for appointment on the said post whichever is later. The Committee of Management, P. M. V. Polytechnic Mathura is directed to complete the selection proceedings with in a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of this order. Later on 18th/19th May, 1990 the services of the petitioners were terminated w. e. f. 31st May, 1990, as a result of which present writ petitions were filed in which aforesaid orders were passed. The writ petitions were dismissed in default on 20th March, 1997 and the interim orders were vacated. The writ petitions were restored on 31st May, 1997 and since the interim orders were lapsed and were not restored, the petitioners ceased to work as Assistant Lecturer. From the side of the respondents, it has been averred in the first counter-affidavit that there were two con ditions in the appointment orders issued to the petitioners, firstly that services of the petitioners would be terminated when a candidate by a Commission would be available or end of the session which-so-ever would be earlier. As no candidate was selected by the Public Service Commission hence second condition would apply. The Principal had already issued a letter dated 18th May, 1990 by means of which the services of the petitioners have been ter minated with effect from 31st May, 1990. In another supplementary counter- af fidavit, it has been averred in para 13 that in spite of aforesaid ad-interim order dated 23rd May, 1990, containing the directions for the answering respondents to complete the selection proceedings with in a period of four months, the institu tion was faced with a situation that the petitioners had been continuing against the post which had been abolished under the Government Order and unless the petitioners cease to work, the post of Lec turer against the post of Instructor cannot be sanctioned by the authority concerned, hence no appointment of the lecturer could be made therein. In para 15 of the Supplementary counter-affidavit, it was indicated that the State Government and the Director of Technical Education U. P. are not processing the proposal sent by the Polytechnic for the sanction of the post of Lecturer in accordance with the Govern ment Order dated 27th June, 1989, by treating the post of Assistant Lecturer or Associate Lecturer as vacant, in as much as the petitioners and others are under the interim orders of this Court and are hold ing the said post, thus the order of regular selection on the post of Lecturer in ac cordance with Government Order dated 27th June, 1989 has been fore-stalled.
(3.) BY means of the Government order dated 31st December, 1967 the post of Instructors working in the Colleges were designated as Assistant Lecturer or Associate Lecturer. It is evident that the appointment of the petitioners could be made only for one year in accordance with the provisions contained in first Proviso to Section 22-F (1) quoted in the foregoing paragraph and the same could not be extended beyond that period. Initially the petitioners were appointed for a year or till the regular selection would be made, but later on 25th July, 1989 an order was passed appointing the petitioners till the regular appoint ment will be made. In view of the first proviso to Section 22-F (1) the appoint ment dated 25-7-1989 dehors the statutory provisions and will give no right to the petitioners to continue as Lecturer.;