Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In a detailed counter affidavit filed by the Office of District Inspector of Schools in Writ Petition No. 44383 of 2001, the stand taken by the State respondents is clear from averments contained in paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit. The same are extracted as under:
7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph Nos. 8 and 10 (paragraph No. 9 has been omitted in the writ petition) it is stated that the petitioner was regularly appointed as a Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against a substantive post with effect from 18.8.1999 only. It is wrong to contend that he was given the benefit of regularisation of service with effect from 20.4.1998. The Government Order to accord the benefit of regularisation to adhoc teachers was issued on 20.4.1998 but was enforced with effect from 27.7.1998. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner's being regularised with effect from 20.4.1998. On the basis of the aforesaid Government Order, the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher were regularised from 18.8.1999. A true copy of the Government Order dated 20.4.1998 is being filed and marked as Annexure CA-1.
10. That the contents of paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition are misconceived and not admitted. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner was regularised with effect from 20.4.1998. The Government Order dated 20.4.1998 was enforced with effect from 27.7.1998, according to which the benefit of Section 33(C) was to be accorded. The benefit of regularisation of adhoc teachers was to be accorded by a selection committee. Therefore, it is not possible to accord the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner from 20.4.1998. The benefit of regularisation has been given to the petitioner only with effect from 18.8.1999 on the recommendation of the selection committee.