Smt. Shashi Prabha vs Joint Director of Education (Women), Allahabad and others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 Smt. Krishnawati Sharma has stated that she (respondent No. 5) has retired. Petitioner was appointed on 14.11.1975 as Civics lecturer on ad-hoc basis against clear vacancy in Vedic Kanya Inter College, Dadri, Ghaziabad (now in District Gautam Budh Nagar). Under different U.P. Secondary Education Removal of Difficulties Orders, 1976 the ad- hoc appointments of the teachers were extended and then through Vth Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 services of all such teachers who had been appointed during a certain period were regularised. (The date of petitioner''s appointment fell during that period) Thereafter, through amendment in Section 16-GG of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in the year 1977 all ad-hoc appointment of teachers who were appointed between 18.8.1975 and 30.9.1976 (deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity) were regularised.

It has further been stated in the writ petition that services of petitioner were illegally terminated by the Principal on 26.7.1976 and at her place respondent No. 5 was appointed. The reason for termination was that petitioner had not taken interest in implementation of 20 point programme (in currency at that time). Firstly, services could be terminated only by management and not by the Principal and secondly for termination of service of a teacher prior approval of District Inspector of Schools or R.I.G.S. was essential. Petitioner made a representation to R.I.G.S. who by order dated 8.5.1977 disapproved the termination order. Inspite of the said order Principal did not permit the petitioner to work and even the direction of management in this regard was flouted by the Principal. R.I.G.S. brought the matter to the notice of the D.I.O.S. through letter dated 4.7.1978. Meanwhile, respondent No. 5 also made representation to Educational authorities and filed suit. First Information Report was also lodged. Petitioner also filed civil suit and made representation to Joint Director of Education. Joint Director of Education passed some order against the petitioner on 4.12.1979. Petitioner filed a writ petition against the action of Joint Director of Education being writ petition No. 3320 of 1980 which was disposed of on 17.9.1984 directing the Joint Director of Education to pass fresh order. After hearing the petitioner Joint Director passed, order on 10.4.1985 against the petitioner which is Annexure-12 to this writ petition and has been challenged through this writ petition.

In the impugned order it is mentioned that Principal terminated the services of petitioner which was approved on 31.7.1976 by R.I.G.S., Meerut, however, it was directed that no other teacher shall be appointed on her place, petitioner intimated that respondent No. 5 had already been appointed. Later on R.I.G.S. extended the appointment of respondent No. 5.

The reason given in the impugned order that services of petitioner automatically came to an end on 30.7.1976 is patently erroneous in law. The extension of ad-hoc service till 30.6.1976 was further extended till 30.9.1976 by lllrd Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 and then till 15.11.1976. by IVth Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 and thereafter by IVth Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 it was directed that incumbents should be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Same thing was repeated through the amendment of 1977 in Section 16-GG of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner was in-fact working in July, 1976 as allegations against her related to July, 1976.

The termination order was also void for the reason that Principal could not terminate the services and secondly prior approval of DIOS/RIGS was also necessary which was not sought.

Joint Director illegally brushed aside the order of R.I.G.S. dated 8.5.1978 dis approving the termination of the petitioner on the ground that she had earlier extended the services of respondent No. 5. The extension in service of respondent No. 5 was a temporary measure for the reason that she was appointed at the place of the petitioner. After holding the termination of the petitioner to be illegal, services of respondent No. 5 should have come to an end automatically.

Accordingly, I hold that the impugned order is patently erroneous in law.

However, the fact is that in this writ petition through interim order dated 23.4.1985, operation of impugned order was stayed however, the said order was modified on 20.2.1986 and it was directed that order of Joint Director of Education holding that services of respondent No. 5 stood regularised was not Stayed. The result is that petitioner could not teach.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has admitted that respondent No. 5 has retired on 30.6.2006. Accordingly, no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the order in favour of respondent No. 5.

On the persuasion of the Court learned Counsel for the petitioner has agreed that petitioner will not press for her salary till date as she has not worked or the said period and respondent No. 5 worked on the post of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was paid salary by the Government. Government cannot be compelled to pay salary to two persons for the same post.

Accordingly, it is directed that petitioner must immediately be given the post of Lecturer in Civics in the college in question latest by 5.1.2009 and she shall be permitted to teach till she attains the age of superannuation. Learned Standing Counsel states that it is quite possible that some one may have been appointed after 30.6.2006. If it is so then application for modification of this order may be filed supported by relevant document.

Writ petition is accprdingly allowed in part as above.

Office is directed to supply copy of this order to learned Standing Counsel or communication to D.I.O.S. and R.I.G.S. concerned.