A.K. Yog, J. - (1.) HARI Om Sharma, Lecturer in Economics, has filed present petition contending that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the recognised College of Respondent No. 2. Sri V.N. Gupta (Lecturer English), being senior most Lecturer, was given ad -hoc promotion on the post of Principal in the institution and consequently post of Lecturer (English) fell vacant. Committee of Management (respondent No. 2) took steps to fill -up said post of Lecturer (English). Senior -most Lecturer, Nihal Singh, was admittedly, not considered as he had acquired qualification of M.A. (Economics) without seeking requisite permission of the Committee of Management. It appears, Management considered Hari Om Sharma, petitioner, who was B.Ed., M.A. (Economics) and, admittedly, was sought to be promoted on ad -hoc basis on the vacancy, admittedly, caused due to ad -hoc promotion of Sri V.N. Gupta on the post or Principal in the institution. Sri V.N. Gupta, senior -most Lecturer M.A. (English) was holding the post of Lecturer in English. Petitioner has placed reliance on the alleged resolution dated 5th July, 1982, copy of this resolution (Annexure 2 to the petition) is being disputed in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 (District Inspector of Schools) and Respondent No. 2 (Committee of Management of the institution). It appears that Sri V.N. Gupta, had to come back on his post and consequent thereupon petitioner was reverted to his present post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) by the Manager. Said decision of the Management was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 16th December, 1985 (Annexure -4 to the petition). Feeling aggrieved petitioner challenged the said order dated 16th December, 1985 alleging, inter alia, that he was appointed on the post of Lecturer i.e., ad -hoc promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of Lecturer (Economics) and hence his promotion as ad -hoc Lecturer was not affected by virtue of the fact that, V.M. Gupta, had to come back on his original post of Lecturer (English). Apart from it, along with writ petition, petitioner has also filed a copy of the resolution dated 5.7.1982 (Annexure -2) and letter of District Inspector of Schools addressed to the institution dated 28.2.1983 (Annexure -3). The word "Arthshastra" in the last sentence of Annexure -2 (particularly page 14 of the paper book) is said to be interpolated by the petitioner deliberately to mislead the Court. Respondents contended that in the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 28.2.1983 (Annexure 3), petitioner has committed forgery by interpolating word 'Pravakta Arthshastra' in third column against his name. Both Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unanimous on the issue; namely, there are interpolations in the documents filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition, Counter Affidavit, sworn by Rajendra Singh on behalf of Respondent No. 2, does not inspire confidence. Court is not inclined to place reliance on it. Relevant paragraph Nos. 3 and 11 of the said Counter Affidavit have been sworn on record. The facts stated therein relate to the record of Committee of Management. Rajendra Singh, deponent of the said Counter Affidavit, (filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2) has no where averred that he was Manager of the institution in the year 1983, that is the period when the documents in question came into existence. Correct copy of the resolution has also not been annexed with the Counter Affidavit by the Management. However, in para 26 of the Counter Affidavit sworn by Om Prakash Gaur on behalf of Respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools, it is asserted that petitioner has manufactured letter of approval and filed before this Court. According to the said Counter Affidavit, original order of approval is quite different and copy of it has been filed as Annexure No. CA -2. Contents of paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit have been sworn on the basis of record, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
(2.) PERUSAL of resolution of Committee of Management (Annexure CA -1 to the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No. 1) shows that petitioner was sought to be appointed by promotion in place of V.N. Gupta Lecturer (i.e. Lecturer of English) even though qualification of Hari Om Shankar, petitioner, has been shown M.A., B.Ed. (Arthshastra). In Annexure C.A. -2, it is mentioned that petitioner was appointed on the vacancy caused by Sri V.N. Gupta. Perusal of Annexure -3 to the writ petition shows that words 'Pravakta Arthshastra' are mentioned therein in place of the words Sri V.N. Gupta (as indicated in Annexure C.A. -2 of the Counter Affidavit of Respondent 1).
(3.) ONE thing is clear that petitioner was sought to be promoted in the contingency of Sri V.N. Gupta, senior -most Lecturer - -being promoted as ad -hoc Principal of the institution. Perusal of the copies of the approval order of District Inspector of Schools (Both Annexure 3 and Annexure C.A. 2 referred to above,), goes to show that petitioner was promoted on the post of lecturer (Economics). There is no discrepancy as far as entry in second column against the name of petitioner stand in the two copies relied by the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 respectively. It is also not disputed that petitioner possessed requisite academic qualification for the said post. It is, however, now disputed in the writ petition that no post of Lecturer (Economics) was vacant when petitioner was given ad -hoc promotion. If it was so, District Inspector of Schools should not have granted approval. Admittedly, petitioner was required to work on the post of Lecturer and he worked throughout as such on the basis of approval letter dated 28.2.83 and subsequently, under ad -interim order dated 8.1.1986 in the present petition.;