JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AZAMGARH REGION AZAMGARH Vs. UDAI RAJ VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE intra-Court appeal under the Rules of the Court arises against the judgment dated 9-7-2002 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner' ).

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Vindheshwari Inter College, Tulsi Nagar, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as "college") is a recognised and aided Intermediate College and governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "1921 Act"), the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred "1971 Act") and U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "1982 Act" ). THE post of Principal fell vacant due to retirement of Sri Raj Kumar Gupta the then Principal of the College on 30-6-1994 whereagainst one Sri Raghunath Pandey, Lecturer (English), who was the senior most Lecturer in the College was promoted as ad hoc Principal under the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "first Order") read with Section 18 of 1982 Act, which resulted in a short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (English) in the College. THE aforesaid short-term vacancy of Lecturer could have been filled in by observing the procedure prescribed under the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "second Order" ). It is said that Committee of Management on 27-10-1993 had passed a resolution constituting a Selection Committee consisting of Sri Jayant Kumar Jaiswal, Purushottam Jaiswal and the Principal of College authorizing them to make selection for ad hoc appointment against the short-term vacancies available or likely to occur in future in the College. THE said committee on 3-7-1994, advertised the post of English (Lecturer) on the notice board of the College pursuant whereto the petitioner and six more candidates applied. THE selection committee interviewed the aforesaid candidates on 24-7-1994 and on the basis of the quality point marks and interview the petitioner was selected and recommended. THE management vide its resolution dated 24-7-1994 resolved to appoint petitioner in short term vacancy of Lecturer and an appointment letter was issued on the said date itself pursuant whereto petitioner joined the College on 1-8- 1994. It is said that relevant papers of the appointment of petitioner sent by the management through Special Messenger were received in the office of District Inspector of Schools (in short the `dios') on 1-8-1994 but he did not communicate any decision thereon for seven days. Even thereafter salary of the petitioner was not paid despite repeated requests and representations. Rather vide letter dated 7-8-1995 the DIOS informed the College, referring to the management's letter dated 16-5-1995 that a number of documents in respect to the appointment of petitioner were required namely application forms submitted by the various candidates pursuant to the advertisement, the quality point chart, interview chart, management's resolution and the basis on which the quality points were awarded. He also enquired when seven candidates had applied why the quality point chart and interview chart mentioned about four candidates only. THE management thereafter sent a quality point chart dated 9-8-1995 of all the seven candidates. THE management also sent letter dated 9-8-1995 stating that the documents pertaining to appointment of the petitioner are again being submitted for perusal and necessary action at the earliest. THE DIOS vide order dated 4-9-1995 however declined to grant approval on the ground that ban on appointment was imposed vide G. O. dated 30-7-1991. THE petitioner challenged the order dated 4-9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 28591 of 1995, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16-10-1995 on the ground of alternative remedy since the order impugned in the writ petition was appealable under para 7 of the First Order. THEreafter, it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 25-11-1995 before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh. After giving an opportunity of oral hearing to the management and the petitioner, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh vide order dated 28-2-1996 rejected the said appeal whereagainst the aforesaid writ petition was filed which has been allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal.

(3.) WE have heard rival submissions, perused the record of the appeal as well as the writ petition and the relevant statutory provisions applicable in this case.