A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS case has been referred for my opinion as a consequence of difference between two learned single Judges constituting the Division Bench which had heard this matter. Brother K. P. Singh was of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed as it raised disputed questions of fact. Brother B. L. Yadav, on the other hand, was of the opinion that on the facts established on the record, the petition deserved to be allowed and appropriate reliefs granted to the petitioners. That is how, the matter was placed before me.
(2.) THE facts material for the decision of this case have been elaborated in considerable detail by brother B. L. Yadav. It is hence not necessary to repeat the same here. The fight is between the petitioners, who claimed to be validly appointed teachers of Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Ballia (which is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasii on the one hand and the Management on the other. They claim that they had been appointed as teachers of the said institution in accordance with the prescribed procedure on a substantive basis after the necessary approval had been obtained from the Vice Chancellor of the said University. The respondent Management was however, not happy with them and consequently, it first placed the petitioners under suspension and subsequently terminated their services by means of a resolution which was assailed by them by way of representation before the Vice Chancel lor who issued a show casue notice to the Management and subsequently by means of an order dated 3- 12-1982 disapproved the purported termination orders passed by the Management against the petitioners. Despite this order the petitioners continued to be deprived of their salary as a result of the obstruction caused by the Management which insisted that the petitioners were temporary and adhoc teachers whose services have been validly terminated and that they are hence not entitled to payment of any salary, much less be treated as teachers of the institution. Broadly two principal questions arise for determination in this case : First, whether the petitioners were appointed on a temporary and adhoc basis whose services could be terminated without the approval of the Vice Chancellor as claimed by the Management or they were appointed in clear vacancy on a substantive basis and consequently their services could not be terminated legally without the approval of the Vice Chancellor as asserted by the petitioners ? and, Second, whether any relief can be granted to the petitioners in these proceedings ?
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the matter anxious consideration, I am clearly of the opinion that on the facts which are not seriously disputed or which may be taken to have been established on the record, the petitioners are certainly entitled to the relief of mandamus directing the respondent to pay their salary and continue to pay the same till the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 referred to above is set aside or adjudged null and void in the suit which has already been filed by the management. I do not agree, with profound respect, with brother K. P. Singh that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petition involves disputed questions of fact. The following position may be taken to be indisputable. Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Kishore Chetan Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) of which the petitioner claim to be validly appointed teachers is a college which is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. The terms and conditions of the teachers appointed to this Institution are regulated by the statutes framed under the U. P. State Universities Act. The petitioners were appointed as teachers of the said Institution. The dispute was only with regard to the nature of their initial appointment the Management contending that the appointment was purely adhoc and temporary, while the petitioners asserting that they were appointed in clear vacancies on a substantive basis in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law after regular selection and approval of the Vice Chancellor. The Management placed the petitioners under suspension, to borrow the words used in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Management, on the ground : "The petitioners were found acting against the interest of the school hence the deponent suspended them.";