Allahabad High Court
Shesh Narayan Misra And Others vs Director Of Education (Secondary), ... on 20 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)AWC2585, (2000)3UPLBEC2287
Author: M. C. Jain
Bench: M.C. Jain
JUDGMENT M. C. Jain, J.
1. The petitioners who are five in number have filed this writ petition for quashing the condition imposed in their appointment letters to the effect that their services would stand terminated on 14.5.1992. A direction has also been sought for the respondents not to interfere in their working and to pay their month to month salary. Their case is that in consequence of advertisement dated 23.10.1990 published in Nav Bharat Times, inviting applications for lecturers/ teachers in different subjects in the colleges of hill areas, they applied and were selected for ad hoc appointment. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed as lecturers whereas the petitioner No 5 to the post of teacher in L.T. grade. Appointment letters were issued to them (Annexures-2 to 6 to the writ petition) and they Joined the institutions where they had been appointed. A condition was imposed in their appointment letters that their services would stand terminated on 14.5.1992. The said condition has been assailed to be wholly unfair and unreasonable having been imposed to deprive them of salary for the summer vacation. They claimed to be entitled to continue on the posts with no reason for dispensing with their services after 14.5.1992. Their work and conduct had also been absolutely satisfactory.
2. I have heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.
3. No counter-affidavit has been filed.
4. By interim order dated 13.4.1992, it was directed that the petitioners would be allowed to continue on their posts until candidates duly selected and recommended were to join and would be entitled to get all benefits like a regular teacher including back wages.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Rattanlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 478, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court criticised the Government policy to appoint ad hoc teachers and thus to deprive them of their service with the close of the session. It was also disapproved that such ad hoc teachers were not to be given all those benefits which were available to the regularly selected candidates. Such action was found to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14794 of 1991, Manjuvati v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 30.7.1991, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In fact, the present controversy raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the said decision. In that case also, the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents in not permitting her to serve on her post w.e.f. 20.5.1991 as mentioned in appointment order. The condition imposed in the appointment letter was that her appointment was for the period upto 20.5.1991 or till a regularly selected candidate was made available for appointment on the post, whichever was earlier. The Court allowed the writ petition with the following observations :
"In the facts and circumstances and the legal position narrated above, in my opinion, petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. She is entitled to continue on the post she has been appointed, until a candidate duly selected becomes available for appointment. However, it is made clear that petitioner and all other teachers so appointed on ad hoc basis shall be subject to all disciplinary and administrative control of State Government like other Government employees. They may be transferred or may be dealt with like other teachers already serving in Government Colleges and Schools.
There is yet another important aspect of the matter which needs consideration. Under the Government orders dated 22.7.1986 and 15.7.1989, admittedly a large number of teachers have been appointed in schools and colleges all over the State particularly in hill areas. There may be cases where teachers serving in remote areas, may not have been able to approach this Court for some reasons like financial etc. However, if such identically situated teachers are not given similar benefits which shall now be available under this order to petitioner and to other teachers who have approached this Court, by filing separate petitions, a great injustice shall be worked to them. Teaching in Government colleges and schools has recently started. In these facts and circumstances, and in the interest of Justice, the respondents are directed to permit all these teachers also to continue, who approach the authorities and are willing to continue on their post, on which they were appointed on ad hoc basis, and to extend to them also all the benefits like present petitioner."
7. In the present case also, no doubt the appointments of the petitioners were made on ad hoc basis, but there is nothing to show that any selection according to rules had been made to replace them. There could hardly be any justification for ceasing the petitioners to work w.e.f. 14.5.1992 and to replace them by another set of ad hoc incumbents.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The condition of the termination of the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 14.5.1992 contained in their appointment letters (Annexures-2 to 6 to the writ petition) is quashed. They shall be allowed to continue on their posts until candidates duly selected and recommended Join the posts and they shall be entitled to get all benefits like regular incumbents including back wages, if any. There will be no order as to costs.