R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the opposite parties were justified in refusing to extend services of the petitioner, a principal in a government degree college till 30th June, from the date of his superannuation which fell in middle of academic session as he was not qualified to teach any subject, within meaning of government order dated 21st March, 1984, in the college in which he was principal for last three years. Factual matrix is plain and simple. The petitioner after selection from U.P. Public Service Commission was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in Government Degree College, Nainital in 1964. In 1966 he was approved for appointment as Professor by the Commission. He was promoted in 1972 and was appointed as Professor and Head of Post Graduate Department in Government Post Graduate College, Srinagar, Garhwal. In 1985 he was promoted and appointed as Principal of Government Degree College, Charkhari. Since he was to superannuate on July 4, 1987 he sent the papers in March, 1987 to opposite parties for extending his services till 30th June, 1988. But it was turned down on 29th June, 1987 and he was informed that since be was attaining age of 58 years on 4th July, 1987 he shall be entitled to continue till July 31, 1987 only. Why was he refused extension is explained in the counter -affidavit. It is claimed that petitioner did not satisfy the third requirement of the Government order, dated March 21, 1984 as the college in which he was principal was recognised for imparting education in Arts subjects only. It emphasised that the college did not impart instructions in Science subjects. Reference has been made to award of adverse entries between 1964 -65 to 1976 -77.
(2.) MENTION of adverse entries is of no consequence as denial and its non communication apart, these entries are prior to the date of petitioner's promotion in 1985. If they could not obstruct petitioner's promotion they could not stand in way of extension, that probably is the reason why the request of petitioner was turned down not because his record was not satisfactory but because of the third requirement in the government order which shall be extracted latter. Even the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel candidly stated that even though it was mentioned in the counter -affidavit but he was not placing any reliance on it. That is clear from the record as well because in the note submitted to government it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner satisfied the first two conditions. To comprehended the import of third condition it may be mentioned that the order was issued in March, 1984 to avoid any disturbance in education due to retirement at age of 58 years provided three conditions were satisfied, one that the work and conduct was satisfactory during service, second he was physically and mentally fit and lastly, that he was really teaching any subject regularly. WAH WASTAV MEN KOI VISHAI NIYAMIT ROOP SE PARHATA HO. What does this clause mean? How the word 'regularly or in accordance with law' the two meaning of word in the dictionaries should be understood in the context it has been used. No rule could be placed nor it could have been placed that a lecturer or head of department in Science subject could not be promoted and appointed as Principal of an Arts College. It is not one of the condition precedent. Therefore, the appointment of petitioner as Principal was in accordance with statutes and that is not disputed. If a person with his academic qualifications in science could be appointed in an Arts College without any science subject then the word 'NIYAMIT' cannot be construed as entitling only that person for extension who was qualified in one of the subjects taught in the college. It was probably for this reason that emphasis is on teaching any subject and not being qualified in one of the subjects taught in the college As a matter of fact the word 'NIYAMIT' has to be understood in the sense of regularly. This meaning accords with the objective of the order, its purpose and language. The intention is to avoid any disturbance in the middle of Session. In other words status as was continuing from before may be maintained so that students may not suffer. If this be the meaning of the order and emphasis is on teaching any subject and not qualifications then petitioner satisfied the third condition as well because it is not disputed rather it was mentioned in the note to the Government that petitioner had been teaching English regularly. But he was not taken to foe covered in the third condition as he was not qualified to teach English. Apart from all this if something is good or entitles a person for appointment there appears no reason to hold that it is not good for extension. The government order related to extension 'VISTRAN' which according to dictionary means 'increased or continued duration', 'an increase in length of time. Therefore, fresh considerations cannot apply. The third requirement has to be understood in relation to initial appointment. It further stands clarified by clause (4) of the Order which provides that if an officer was not in teaching then he should not be entrusted with this job in last year for purposes of extension. Further the word 'the subject' 'KOI VISHAI' is not without significance. It is of wide connotation it clarifies the intention as government must have been aware that even science teachers are appointed as Principal in Arts College. The condition is not the subject in which the teacher is qualified but he was teaching. Since petitioner was teaching English regularly he was teaching one of the subjects and the opposite parties erroneously construed this condition as equivalent to be qualified in one of the subjects. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated May 28, 1987 communicated to the petitioner by letter dated June 29, 1987 is quashed The petitioner shall be entitled to function as Principal till June 30, 1988, The petitioner shall also be entitled for his salary as Principal for the period from August 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988. The opposite parties are directed to pay the same from August 1, 1987 to April, 1988 within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced. The salary of May and June, 1988 shall be paid as and when due. There shall be no order as to costs.;