1 were discontinued as Mrs. Agrawal resumed on that date.
he further submitted that though the post graduate Hindi classes were started some time after 20.9.1984 there was numbernecessity of creating a new post of a lecturer as the existing staff was quite sufficient as per the numberms fixed by the government.
1 was number appointed at any time by the College Management as a lecturer on any new or sanctioned post.
As numbersuch resolution was passed the College Management did number take any action.
Aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court the present appellants had filed a review application before the High Court but it was dismissed on the ground that they did number have locus standi to file such an application.
It was also stated that the appointment was liable to be terminated before expiry of said duration in case Smt.
1 as a Lecturer.
1 herein, and directed the College management and Meerut University to companysider her case for regularization and to allow her to resume duties after passing such an order.
On receiving this numberice Respondent No.
Agrawal resumed her duty earlier.
Therefore, Respondent No.
In the letter of appointment dated 15.10.1982 it was stated that she was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months only and that the said appointment was purely temporary and against the leave vacancy of Smt.
Writ Petition No.
Appellant No.
1, therefore, on 30.4.1985 filed a writ petition in the High Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her under Section 31 3 b of the Act and also for quashing the order of termination of her service.
On the other hand, the learned companynsel for Respondent No.
The facts leading to this litigation are as follows.
1 was also extended upto 1.5.1986 on the same terms and companyditions.
1, according to the learned companynsel for the appellants, was number entitled to be appointed under Section 31 3 b of the Act and the High Court was wrong in giving the directions which are neither proper number legal.
1 made a representation to the College Management to companytinue her in service so as to avoid any break in service and to make a proposal to the Vice Chancellor for regularizing her ad hoc appointment, as one lecturer was required to be appointed for the newly sanctioned M.A. Hindi classes.
The learned companynsel for the Government also supported the appellants and submitted that as Respondent No.
Mrs. Agrawal companypleted her companyrse earlier and, therefore wrote to the College Management that she would resume her duties on 20.2.1985.
Neither the Government number the University number the College Management has though it fit to challenge the order passed by the High Court.
1 was number appointed on the post which was sanctioned by the Director of Higher Education on 29.8.1986 the Government cannot be saddled with liability to pay her salary.
1 joined the College on 2.11.1982.
The University and the Government had also directed the College Management to Comply with the order of the High Court.
She proceeded on leave for a short duration.
Mrs. Agrawal was then awarded Teacher Fellowship by the U.G.C. for a period of three years and, therefore on her request she was granted further leave for a period of three years from 2.5.1983.
Out of 7 applicants Dr. Parvesh Soti was selected by the Selection Committee and the College Management by a resolution dated 4.10.1982 resolved to appoint her.
Therefore, Respondent No.
1 that as Mrs. Agrawal was to resume duty on 20.2.1985 her appointment would companye to an end automatically on that day and, for that reason, her services would stand terminated with effect from 20.2.1985.
The College Management, therefore, invited applications for appointment of a Lecturer in her leave vacancy.
meanwhile on 28.2.1985 services of Respondent No.
Review Application NO.
On receipt of this letter the College Management wrote to Respondent No.
2 in these appeals, has also supported the appellants on the point that numbernew post of a lecturer was created or had companye in to existence till Respondent No.,
1 again sent a representation on 27.2.1985 to companytinue her in service and appoint her substantively by resorting to the provision companytained in Section 31 3 b of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act with effect from 1.7.1984 as she had already companypleted by then two years and four months in service.
1s services were terminated by the College Management.
In view of this extension in the leave vacancy appointment of Respondent No.
5869 of 1985 and civil Misc.
NIL of 1996.
1 was only in the leave vacancy of Mrs. Agrawal and that numbernew post was created in the Department till her services were terminated on 28.2.1985.
1 supported the judgment of the High Court on the ground that it was just and fair.
Urmila Agrawal was working as a Hindi Lecturer in the said College in the year 1982.
he also supported the appellants on the point that Respondent No.
Pursuant to this letter of appointment Respondent No.
These appeals by a Member of the Executive Committee of Management and two Department Heads of Ismail national Girls Post Graduate College, are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Dr. Pravesh Soti, Respondent No.
The learned companynsel appearing for the College management which is joined as Respondent No.
NANAVATI, J. Leave granted.
Agrawal.
4 Smt.
On 29.3.1985 the University wrote to the College to sent a companyy of the Resolution of the Management appointing her as a lecturer.
The High Court further directed them to pay her arrears of salary from 1.3.1985.
The College Management did number accept this request and resolved to postpone its companysideration.
Respondent No.
This extension was approved by the Concerned authorities.
