RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Cgunsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Sri Subhash Pandey was appointed as lecturer in Maniyar Inter College, Maniyar, district Ballia on ad hoc basis against the vacancy caused on account of the retirement of Sri Deena Nath Singh, a permanent lecturer in the College. Sri Subhash Pandey, who was himself stated to be on ad hoc basis proceeded on long medical leave and the petitioner was appointed against the said short-term vacancy after notifying the vacancy in the newspaper 'Anand Varta'. In all six candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and out of them the petitioner was found suitable for the post. Neces­sary papers with regard to the selection of the petitioner for approval was for­warded to the D.I.O.S. When no order was passed by the D.I.O.S. within 7 days, an appointment order dated 15.2.1994 was issued by the Manager of the Institu­tion and in pursuance of the said letter joined his duties on 20.2.1994. Thereafter D.I.O.S. accorded approval to his appointment. It is stated that the petitioner is continuously discharging his duty and was being paid salary. However, in the year 1994 the payment of salary pf the petitioner was stopped along with the other teachers. But by the order dated 16.3.99, the payment of salary in favour of the petitioner has again been released. However, due to some enquiry regarding irregular appointments in educational institutions being conducted by C.B.C.I.D., the payment of salary to the petitioner from February, 2003 was again stopped. Being aggrieved, the Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh filed a writ petition No. 28885 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.2.2005 with the direction to complete the enquiry within three months and to disburse the salary of those teachers whose appointments were found in order. When the enquiry was not completed within three months as directed by this Court, the petitioner filed a contempt petition No. 1724 of 2004 in which a direction was given to the Director of Education to consider the case of the petitioner and others and pass the appropriate order. In compliance of this direction, the Director of Education passed the order dated 18.11.2005 after hearing the petitioner and this order has been impugned in the present writ petition. It is contended that by the impugned order, the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow has wrongly rejected the representation on the ground that advertisement was not properly made and that at the time of the appointment of the petitioner, there was ban on such appointment. The Counsel for the petitioner disputed the grounds taken by the Director of Education for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the payment of salary has been stopped as there was a general complaint with regards the ir­regularity in the appointments in the aided institutions by the Committee of Man­agement and, as such, the State Government has instituted an enquiry of all the aided institutions. He further submits that the D.I.O.S. has full authority to stop the salary of an employee of an aided institution who have been found to be appointed illegally and irregularly. It has not been brought to the notice of the Court that any enquiry has been instituted against the appointment of the peti­tioner or the appointment of the petitioner was found to be irregular or illegal. Rather, it has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed and approval was granted to his appointment by the D.I.O.S. From perusal of the pleadings, it will be abundantly clear that no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing or any sort of personal enquiry was made in the case of the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the D.I.O.S. and as such the salary of the petitioner has been wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily withheld without any justification. Stoppage of salary on the basis of general enquiry by the Department cannot be permitted in law. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the arrears of salary of the petitioner with all the consequential benefits and further continue to pay sal­ary to the petitioner month to month within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(3.) THE petition is disposed of with the above directions.;