Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Of Crosthwaite ... vs District Inspector Of Schools-Ii ... on 1 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1650, (2000)2UPLBEC1218
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. So far as the Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 is concerned, the same was decided by an order dated 3.2.1999. Shri Shared Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner had filed an application for recalling the said order. After hearing Shri Sharad Malviya, it appears that sufficient ground was made out for recalling the order. The application is allowed and the order dated 3.2.1999 is hereby recalled. The Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 is hereby restored to its original file and number.
2. This writ petition was listed along with two other writ petitions, namely. Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997. After the Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 is restored, by consent of the parties, the matter is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing along with the said two other writ petitions. Shri Sharad Malviya had addressed the Court in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents committee of management of the concerned school in the other two writ petitions. Mr. R.A. Akhtar addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997. Shri S.F.A. Naqvi addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997. Mr. Ashok Khare addressed the Court on behalf of respondent No. 3 in C. M. Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999.
3. I have heard all the learned counsel at length. The hearing continued for successive days. Affidavits and counter-affidavits have been exchanged, several supplementary counter-affidavits have also been filed in the writ petitions. All these matters were placed before the Court and have been taken up.
4. The facts of all these cases are almost identical and identical question of law being involved, these three cases are being taken up together by consent of the parties.
5. The facts of the case which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues involved, are narrated in a short compass in the following manner :
On June 30, 1991, one Smt. Kalindi Negi an L. T. grade teacher in vocal music in the college having retired, the post held by her fell vacant. Smt. M. S. Philip an L. T. grade teacher in geography retired on June 30, 1995, creating a vacancy in the post held by her. Smt. G.D. Philip an L. T. grade teacher in English having retired on June 30, 1995, the post held by her had fallen vacant. Smt. Seema Kalra was promoted to the post of lecturer on the retirement of Smt. M. Kumari Srivastava on June 30, 1996 and due to such promotion, the post in Home Science in L. T. grade fell vacant. Smt. Moti Sarta an L. T. grade teacher in English was promoted to the post of lecturer in English on retirement of Smt. S.C. Parti. The post in L. T. grade in English thus fell vacant.
However, in this case the date has not been mentioned by the committee of management. The petitioner (Committee of Management of Croshtwaite Girls College, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the committee of management) in C. M. Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 has narrated these facts in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf in Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997. Be that as it may, one vacancy had fallen vacant in the year 1993 and two other vacancies had fallen vacant in the year 1994-95 whereas the other vacancies had occurred in the year 1995-96. The Service Commission, constituted under the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), had issued an advertisement for recruitment of teachers on June 15, 1995. The committee of management being the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 objected to the allotment of teachers in the School by the Commission and did not allow the teachers selected, to join the School.
6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2337 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 having not been allowed to join the said School had filed the said two writ petitions respectively. The committee of management had filed Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 to support their contention apart from filing the counter-affidavit in the other two writ petitions.
7. Mr. Sharad Malviya learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 supported the action on the part of the committee of management on the ground that the school authority had notified the requisition for filling up the vacancy which had fallen vacant after the advertisement was issued. According to him, the Commission was free to fill up the vacancies which were existing on June 15, 1995. Since the vacancies in the school were not included in the advertisement, therefore, the Commission had no authority and jurisdiction to allot or allocate any selected candidate to the School. According to him, the Commission can only select the candidate for a school provided the requisition is sent by the school in view of Sections 10 and 11 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982, as amended by Act No. 1 of 1995. Therefore, it was within the right of the committee of management to refuse to permit the candidate selected by the Commission to join the school, by virtue of their selection and allotment by the Commission. The petitioner did not acquire any right to join the school. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in other two Writ Petition No. 2337 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 should be dismissed and the relief sought for in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 should be granted.
8. Mr. Ashok Khare learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 had contended that the committee of management has no locus standi to oppose the selection and allocation of candidate by the commission. Even if such objection could be raised by a teacher, who has a right to take up such objection, as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India claiming right of promotion, but the committee of management cannot claim any right. In any event the object of running the school by the committee of management is to impart education. In order to impart education it is necessary to appoint teachers. There is no purpose in keeping a vacancy vacant for an indefinite period. If qualified teachers are available and can be appointed within the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions of law in that event it is not open to the committee of management to refuse appointment to the teachers who were selected by the Commission. The legality of the recruitment cannot be questioned by the committee of management. The Commission's selection cannot be questioned by the committee of management. The committee of management is in no way concerned with the process of selection, except sending requisitions intimating the vacancies. Even if the committee of management fails to intimate the vacancy it was incumbent on the District inspector of Schools to intimate the vacancy. According to him such vacancy ought to have been assessed in respect of the ensuing year and intimate within the period mentioned in Rule 11 (2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 1995. Such vacancies which are existing during the last day of the year of recruitment, shall be sent to the Inspector by the management within July 15, of the year of recruitment. After receipt of such notification the District Inspector of Schools shall verify and forward the same to the Commission. The procedure for recruitment shall be undertaken by the Commission thereafter. According to him in the present case at least 3 vacancies were existing in the year of recruitment namely when the vacancy had been advertised, Thus, the vacancy which had occurred on June 30, 1995, should have been intimated by July 15, 1994. The vacancy otherwise due to occur on June 30, 1996 should have been intimated by July 15, 1995. In the present case the advertisement having been issued on June 15, 1995, at least the vacancy in respect of that which had occurred between 1993 and 1995 ought to have been intimated by July 15, 1994, namely before the advertisement was issued. Therefore, the committee of management is not entitled to make any capital out of the non-notification of the vacancy. It was open to the District Inspector of Schools, to notify all such vacancies to the Commission, He further contended that even if the committee of management or the District Inspector of Schools had failed to notify the vacancy to the Commission, the Commission may select the candidate and allot the school according to the vacancy existing. According to the scheme as framed under the Act and the Rules there is no scope or provision by reason whereof the committee of management could oppose the selection or allocation of school in respect of the candidate selected by the Commission. By reason of the scheme of the Act and the Rules it is incumbent on the committee of management to give appointment to the selected candidate allocated to the school by the Commission. Therefore the committee of management has no authority or rights to refuse permission to the candidate so selected to join the school. Therefore, according to him the petitioner does not have any legal right or locus standi to espouse the Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999.
9. Mr. Naqvi and Mr. Akhtar adopted the argument of Mr. Ashok Khare and rebutted the argument of Mr. Malviya and had sought to elaborate the same which need no repetition.
10. Now the merit of the respective contention made by the respective counsel may be examined.
11. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982 in Section 16 provides that the appointment of teachers could be made only on the recommendation of the Board and any appointment made in contravention of the provision of subsection (1) of Section 16 shall be void as provided in sub-section (2) thereof. The school authority has been given power to make appointment under Section 18 read with U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, for filling up the post on ad hoc basis. But the same does not preclude the Commission from making appointment of regularly selected candidates. Then again such ad hoc appointments are subject to the joining of the regularly selected candidate. Thus, the authority conferred on the committee of management by virtue of Section 18 or under the Removal of Difficulties Orders cannot empower the committee of management to question the selection made by the Commission. Thus, by virtue of the subsequent amendment through U. P. Act No. 1 of 1992 and U. P. Act No. 4 of 1995 the committee of management is not empowered to make any appointment against substantive vacancy even on ad hoc basis.
Therefore, even by reason of making of ad hoc appointment, the committee of management cannot claim any legal right to oppose appointment by the Commission. In the absence of any legal right conferred on the committee of management to make any appointment. It cannot claim any locus standi to oppose the appointment made by the Commission.
12. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995, framed under the said 1982 Act prescribes the procedure for selection. Rule 10 thereof provides as follows :
"10. Source of recruitment.--Recruitment to various categories of teachers shall be made from the following sources :
(a) Principal of an Intermediate College or Head Master of a High School.
By direct recruitment
(b) Teachers of lecturers grade.
(i) 50 per cent by direct recruitment (ii)50 per cent by promotion from amongst the subs-tan lively appointed teachers ofthe trained graduates.
(c) Teachers of trained graduates (L.T.) grade.
(i) 50 per cent by direct recruitment ; (ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the subs-tan lively appointed teachers of Certificate of teaching (C.T.) grade ;
Provided that if in any year of recruitment suitable eligible candidates are not available for recruitment by promotion, the posts may be filled in by direct recruitment.
Provided further that if in calculating respective percentages of posts under this rule there comes a fraction then the fraction of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment shall be ignored and the inaction of the posts to be filled by promotion shall be increased to make it one post.
The above provisions provides for the purposes of making appointment. The management was bound to determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment.
13. Rule 11 prescribes for preparation of panel by the Commission which provides :
"11. Determination and notification of vacancies.--(1) The Management shall determine the number of vacancies in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act and notify them through the inspector, to the Commission in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) The statement of vacancies for each category of post to be filled in by direct recruitment or by promotion, including the vacancies that are likely to arise due to retirement on the last day of the year of recruitment, shall be sent separately in quadruplicate in the proforma given in Appendix 'A' by the Management to the Inspector by July 15 of the year of recruitment and the Inspector shall, after verification from the record of his office, prepare consolidated statement of vacancies of the district subject-wise in respect of vacancies of trained graduates (L.T.) grade. The consolidated statement so prepared shall, along with the copies of statement received from the Management, be sent by the Inspector to the Commission by July 31 with a copy thereof to the Deputy Director :
Provided that if the State Government is satisfied that it is expedient so to do, it may, by order in writing, fix other dates for notification of vacancies to the Commission in respect of any particular year of recruitment:
Provided further that in respect of the vacancies existing on the date of the commencement of these rules as well as the vacancies that are likely to arise on June 30, 1995 the Management shall, unless some other dates are fixed under the preceding proviso, send the statement of vacancies by June 15, 1995 to the Inspector and the Inspector shall send the consolidated statement in accordance with this sub-rule to the Commission by June 30, 1995.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-rule the word group-wise in respect of the trained graduates (L.T.) grade means in accordance with the following groups, namely :
(a) Language Group ;
This group consists oT the subjects of Hindi Sanskrit. Urdu. Persian and Arabic : (b) Science Group ; This group consists of the subjects of Science and Mathematics : (c) Art and Craft Group : (d) Music Group : (e) Agriculture Group : (f) Home Science Group ; (g) Physical Education Group ; (h) General Group ; This group consists of the subjects not covered in any of the foregoing groups.
(3) If, after the vacancies have been notified under sub-rule (2), any vacancy in the post of a teacher occurs, the Management shall, within fifteen days of its occurrence, notify to the Inspector in accordance with the said sub-rule and the Inspector shall within ten days of its receipt by him he send it to the Commission (4) Where, for any year of recruitment, the Management does not notify the vacancies by the date specified in sub-rule (2) or falls to notify them in accordance with the said sub-rule, the Inspector shall on the basis of the record of his office, determine the vacancies in such institution in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act and notify them to the Commission in the manner and by the date referred to in the said sub-rule. The vacancies notified to the Commission under this sub-rule shall be deemed to be notified by the Management of such institution.
14. It appears that the Commission is required to hold interview for the preparation of panel of candidates suitable for appointment. Such panel is to be forwarded to the committee of management in respect of the vacancy notified under sub-section (1) of Section 10. The management upon receipt of such intimation is bound to issue appointment letter to the selected candidates within one month. Only in case the selected candidate fails to join or the candidate so selected is not otherwise available, then it may request the Commission to send fresh name from the panel from the Commission. The Rules have been framed for the purpose of implementation of the said procedure as provided in the Act as indicated above. Rule 11 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 provides the manner in which the vacancy ought to be determined and notified. The Management is required to prepare the statement of vacancy of each category to be filled up by direct recruitment including vacancies which are likely to arise due to retirement on the last day of the year of recruitment. After such determination, requisition is to be forwarded to the Inspector of Schools within July 15, of the year of recruitment. The Inspector thereupon, on verification from the record, shall forward the same to the Commission within July 31, with a copy to the Deputy Director. The Government having satisfied may fix date for notification of vacancy to the Commission in respect of any year of recruitment. The vacancy existing on the date of commencement of the Rule as well as the vacancies that are likely to arise on July 30, 1995, were to be send by June 15, 1995, to the Inspector and the Inspector shall send the same to the Commission by June 30, 1995, while sub-rule (4) provides that if the management does not notify them in that event the Inspector on the basis of the record in his office shall declare the vacancy and may notify the Commission accordingly. The vacancy notified to the Commission under sub-rule (4) by the Inspector shall be deemed to be a notification by the management of the institution.
15. Rule 12 prescribes the procedure for direct recruitment. The Commission may advertise the vacancies under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 which prescribes the procedure. The said allocation could be made on the basis of merit in the selection list. In case on the standing on merit the preferred School is not available, the candidate may be allocated to any school as the Commission may direct, with the only inhibition that no candidate shall be allocated to a school within his home district. Rule 13 provides for intimation of the names of the selected candidate through the Inspector of Schools to the School concerned as well as the candidates. The management on being so intimated are bound to comply with the intimation and sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 requires sending of a candidate by the Inspector.
16. Thus, on examination of the whole scheme as discussed above shows that the committee of management has no role in the matter of recruitment or selection of a candidate or allocation of the school. Thus, neither under the Act nor under the Rules there is any scope for the committee of management to raise any objection to the selection or allocation of the school. Neither the Act nor the Rule had made any provision contemplating in any manner, the involvement of the committee of management in the matter of selection or appointment of teachers of a school, except a duty to notify the vacancy that might occur till the last day of the year of recruitment. One vacancy had occurred on June 30, 1993, two vacancies had occurred on June 30. 1993. Thus, in terms of sub-rule 2 (10) of Rule 11, these vacancies should have been notified on July 15, 1994 and July 15, 1994. But the Rules came into force in 1995 providing for notification by June 15, 1995. The committee of management ought to have notified the said three vacancies within June 15, 1995.
17. Be that as it may, if during the period 1993-95 when Sections 10 and 11 stood deleted and 1995 Rule having not been in operation, the committee of management did not even have any obligation to intimate the vacancy. As such it cannot claim any right during this period on the ground that it had not intimated vacancy to the Commission. If the situation stood as such in the absence of Rules 10 and 11 during this period. It was incumbent upon the Commission to fill up any vacancy which were existing till June 30, 1995, by reason of the advertisement issued on June 15, 1995, even though requisition was not made by the school authority. Thus, the school authority cannot claim any legal right as has been pressed by Mr. Sharad Malviya in respect of selection and appointment or allocation of school.
18. In the absence of any legal right, it was incumbent upon the school authority to allow the selected candidate to join the school. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 2337 of 1997, the committee of management had contended that since no appointment was made, therefore, the committee of management had appointed ad hoc teachers on the aforesaid vacant posts. Thus, it appears that by refusing the appointment of the selected candidate, the school authority were trying to appoint ad hoc teachers in the school. The ad hoc appointment appears to have been made after 1992 against substantive vacancy when the school authority was invested with no power to make ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. The school authority had tried to support the ad hoc appointment made by it when it was divested of the power to appointment even on ad hoc basis. The school authority had no right to refuse the appointment of the petitioners in the schools. Such appointment which are made under the First Removal of Difficulty Order or under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, those could be continued till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission is available. There being no ground for the committee of management to resist the appointment of regularly selected candidate by reason of the provisions contained in the Act and in the Rules, the committee of management is bound to appoint the candidate selected by the Commission.
19. Mr. Sharad Malviya had relied upon the decision in the case of State of U. P. v. Paras Nath, Kamlesh Kumar v. Yogendra Kumar, 1998 UPLBEC 743, he relied in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 of the said decision. But the decision cannot be attracted in the present case in view of the fact that the same deals with the provision relating to the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. It appears that the question involved in the said case related to Section 12 and Section 13 particularly Section 13 (4) thereof. Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act are as follows :
12. Procedure for appointment of teachers.--(1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void.
(2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies, likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
Explanation.---The expression 'academic year' means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1.
(3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subjectwise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges.
(4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulation :
Provided that the Commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons given wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under subsection (3) :
Provided further, that the candidates shall be required to indicate at their order of preference for the various colleges, vacancies wherein have been advertised.
13. Recommendation of Commission.--(1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub-section (3) of Section 12, hold interview (with or without written examination of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so far as practicable, twenty five per cent more than the number of vacancies fn that subject. Such names, shall be arranged in order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination and interview if any examination is held.
2. The lists sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission.
3. The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner to the order of preference if any indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to subsection (4) of Section 12, intimates to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub-section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub-section (2) of Section 12.
4. Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy.
5. Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions, where abolition of any post of teacher in any college, services of the persons substantively appointed to such post is terminated the State Government may make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy, whether notified under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or not in any other college and thereupon the Director shall intimate to the management accordingly.
6. The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) or sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned.
20. A perusal of the said provisions clearly indicate that those cases are distinguished and different from those of Sections 10 and 11 of 1982 Act. There is no resemblance and identity between the said two provisions of two different Acts. Therefore, the decision therein cannot be attracted in the present case. On the other hand, the observation made in paragraph 13 of the said decision helps the contention of Mr. Khare which may be quoted as herein below :
"13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant Act and the Rules, we find that the aforesaid amendments were brought in to eliminate ad hocism and irregular appointment of teachers. This is also to eliminate favourites, nepotism and other processes, through which unqualified undesirable persons were appointed excluding meritorious teachers. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 12 provides for wide publicity through advertisement for inviting talented persons for filling up such vacancies, as notified under sub-section (3). This was done keeping in mind that whenever such vacancy occurs selection should be from a larger sphere through wide advertisements which could include large applicants competing. Both ad hoc appointment and appointment made for any vacancy not properly advertised limits sphere where it may either as under the old Act to be regularised or under the principle of equity, sympathy to be regularised if a case be made out which erodes the very foundation of a teaching institution by lowering the teaching standard. It is, keeping this objective, the aforesaid amendments in 1992 were brought in. The relevant portion of statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act in this regard is reproduced below :
Prefatory Note--Statement of Objects and Reasons.--The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service (Commission) Act, 1980 (U. P. Act No. 16 of 1990) has been enacted to establish a Service Commission for the Selection of teachers for appointment to the colleges affiliated to or recognised by a University. Section 16 of the Act empowered the management of Degree Colleges to appoint ad hoc teachers. Under this provision ad hoc teachers were appointed in the non-Government colleges who continued to work from the date of their appointment. These teachers had been demanding regularisation of their service. It was decided to amend the aforesaid Act.
(1) To regularise the qualified and otherwise eligible ad hoc teachers appointed during the period between January 3, 1984 and January 30, 1991 ;
(2) To abolish system of appointing ad hoc teachers ;
(3) To streamline the manner of selection of teachers by providing that subject-wise consolidated number of vacancies likely to be caused during an academic year shall be notified to the Commission which will send the list of candidates selected for appointment to the Director, who will intimate the names to management for making appointments."
21. A perusal of the said observation made by the Court shows that when a regularly selected candidate is made available by the Commission, non-advertisement or non-intimation shall not be a ground to refuse appointment to selected candidates and continue the ad hoc appointment. Thus, there is no right on the part of the committee of management to continue the ad hoc appointment opposing the appointment of the regularly selected candidate through due process of law.
22. For the reasons above the Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 fails and is accordingly dismissed.
23. Mr. Malviya had contended that one Archana Dwivedi whose name was forwarded by the Commission on April 1, 1997 was appointed as a Music teacher. Whereas the petitioner Smt. Shamama Abidi in Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997 has been selected as a L.T. grade teacher in English. Therefore, the appointment of Smt. Abidi cannot be said to have filled up the vacancy of teacher in English.
24. But the fact remains that there is a vacancy in the post of L.T. grade teacher in English and Smt. Shamama Abidi having been selected by the Commission as L.T. grade teacher in English and having been allocated to the concerned school. The appointment of Smt. Shamama Abidi petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997, cannot be refused.
25. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997 is allowed and the committee of management is directed to issue appointment letter as soon as the petitioner Smt. Shamama Abidi reports for duty in the school. The question of payment of salary to her shall be decided by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law with regard to her duty for which she would be entitled for the payment of salary under the law. The petitioner shall be entitled to current rate of salary from the committee of management on and from the date she reports for duties, no matter whether she is allowed to join the school or not. In case the petitioner is not permitted to join by the committee of management, in that event the District Inspector of Schools shall supersede the committee of management and appoint an Administrator who will permit the petitioner to join the school by issuing appointment letter.
26. It is submitted on behalf of Tehseen Fatima in Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 that she was a teacher in Geography. Shri Sharad Malviya had pointed out from the letter of intimation that the subject Geography was not mentioned therein. She was mentioned as a general candidate. The same cannot be a ground of objection to prevent the petitioner Tehseen Fatima to join the post in Geography. She is qualified for being appointed as a teacher in Geography.
27. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 is hereby allowed in view of the vacancy existing in the post of L.T. grade teacher in Geography. She should be allowed to join the school and the appointment letter should be issued on the date she reports for duties. In case the committee of management does not permit to resume her duty and does not issue appointment letter in that event the District Inspector of Schools shall supersede the committee of management and appoint an Administrator who will issue appointment letter and permit the petitioner to join the school. She will be entitled to salary including current salary from the date the reports for duty in terms of the directions given in case of Smt. Shamama Abidi in Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997, similarly.
28. Before parting with these writ petitions. It is observed that the committee of management is contesting the cases right from the beginning. The conduct of the committee of management is so adamant that it had taken grounds which are not relevant for the purpose and had kept the regularly selected candidate out for a long time. Thus, it is apparent that it has no concern with the matter of education. The object of the school is to impart education. The committee of management cannot claim any right over the appointment. By virtue of the scheme of the Act it is the committee of management who is bound to issue appointment letter to the candidate selected by the Commission. It is only to satisfy the ego or zeal, the committee of management had fought the case and had sought remedy by filing Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999. In fact the committee had sought to further its interest in perpetrating the continuance of the teachers appointed by it on ad hoc basis, though it had no right or jurisdiction to do so. Thus, the committee of management has shown less concern for the purpose and object of the school but more for its own ego and vested interest. Therefore, it would be open to the District Inspector of School to issue appropriate order if it is so advised to supersede the committee of management and appoint an Administrator, if circumstances so warrant in law.
29. With these observations the writ petitions are decided as hereinbefore.
30. In the result the Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1999 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 3,000 payable by the committee of management to the respondent No. 3.
31. The Writ Petition No. 19768 of 1997 is allowed with costs payable by the committee of management to the petitioner assessed at Rs. 3.000.
32. The Writ Petition No. 23370 of 1997 is also allowed with costs of Rs. 3,000 payable by the committee of management to the petitioner.
33. This order shall have no effect on the appointment of Smt. Archana Dwivedi, if she has any independent right under the law.