D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By or under a letter dated 4th August. 1983, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad had granted permission in respect of additional subjects in the Commerce Department, in Sanskrit, Mathematics and Statics. In the said letter, it was pointed out that the School may obtain permission from the Inspector for running classes in those additional subjects. By or under a letter dated 27th August. 1983 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the Inspector had granted permission to run Class XI in respect of the additional subjects. Clause 4 of the letter dated 4th August, 1983, provides that the Lecturers who are lesser qualified may be removed and adequately qualified Lecturers may be appointed in their place according to the rules.
(2.) Mr. Arun Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. N. Pandey contends in Writ Petition No. 10666 of 1992 that the petitioner had been teaching intermediate classes in Mathematics and Statics right from 1983. He had completed 10 years' service In L.T. grade in 1982. therefore, he was eligible for being promoted to the post of Lecturer in Mathematics. The School Authority by or under Us letter dated 22nd August, 1983. had requested the Director of Education for creation/sanction of the post in the additional subjects as recognised by the letter dated 4th August. 1983. The said letter is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner had also made representation which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. claiming salary in the post of Lecturer on account of his teaching the said subject. This was also certified by the school authority through its letter dated 21st August. 1990, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This fact is also admitted in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State respondents in paragraph 6 to the extent that the petitioner is teaching Mathematics in intermediate classes on stop-gap arrangements. The only ground on which the State respondent had denied the claim of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit, is that the post was not sanctioned and, therefore, no ad hoc appointment could be made pursuant to the letter dated 4th August, 1983. In such circumstances, Mr. Tandon placed reliance on the decision in the case of Arjun Singh v. State of U. P, and others. 1997 (31) ALR 485, and contended that the petitioner should be given appointment to the post of Lecturer since the creation of the post was implied in the grant of recognition in respect of the said subject.
(3.) Mr. K. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. N. Yadav in Writ Petition No. 1385 of 1993 contends that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Commerce on 15th September, 1990 which is Annexure-3 to this writ petition on ad hoc basis till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins. He claims that he had been working as a teacher in Commerce since 1990 and therefore, he should be given salary in Lecturer's grade since 1983. As contended in paragraph 24 of the writ petition, the petitioner having been appointed in 1990 cannot claim payment of salary in Lecturer grade since 1983.;