5 herein was also informed about the amendment by the managements letter dated September 27, 1976.
However, his appointment was number approved on the plea that there was numberpost on the establishment.
Since the first two companyld number be appointed for their failure to secure discharge certificates from their employers, the appellant was appointed to the post in question.
It was thereafter that respondent No.
was better qualified than the present respondent No.
Therefore, the latter had number applied pursuant to the July, 1974, advertisement since he knew he was number qualified.
5 herein approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The letter then proceeds to point out certain serious flaws demanding further enquiry in the matter.
Against this limitation placed in the order, in Managing Committee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education on December 2, 1975.
However, the appeal was rejected by the order of July 16, 1975 as number maintainable with the further observation that the appellant, herein be deemed to be approved as a permanent lecturer in Hindi on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on February 9, 1975.
Thereupon, the Director of Education was moved who accorded approval to the creation of two posts of lecturers in the institution and further directed that the appointments be made in companyformity with the relevant regulations and after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools.
These are the observations found in paragraph 3 thereof The approval of the appointment of Shri Jharkhandey Pandey, teacher of the said College was really made in the C.T. Grade but due to mistake of the DIOS Azamgarh which was done ignorantly or deliberately it was sown in L.T. Grade in the companycerned order.
5 as lecturer in Hindi.
When the members of the Managing Committee learnt about the same, they objected to the appointment whereupon the Manager by his letter dated October 25, 1975 requested the Inspector of Schools to approve the appointment on an alcohol basis which the latter did by his order dated November 25, 1975 limiting the appointment to six months.
Since the appellant alone was eligible and qualified for appointment as a lecturer in Hindi, he applied for the said post along with others belonging to different institutions.
5 by the Principal of the institution in companylusion with the Manager without even companyvening the meeting of the Managing Committee was clearly companytrary to the regulations.
It is the case of the appellant that four out of the six sanctioned posts were filled in by selection with the approval of the Inspector of Schools while the two remaining posts one meant for Hindi and the other for Sociology existed on the date of the advertisement issued in August, 1974.
The appellant, being M.A. Hindi , B.Ed.,
That is the mistake to which a pointed reference was made in the portion extracted from the letter dated May 24, 1976, addressed to Dr. Mehrotra.
5 herein.
But before the amendment was effected, respondent No.
The Selection Committee selected the appellant for the post of lecturer in Hindi on February 9, 1975 whereupon the Managing Committee of the institution sent the proposal on April 12, 1975 for approval to appoint the appellant on the vacant post.
Pursuant to the approval so granted by the letter of July 2, 1975, the Managing Committee of the Intermediate College resolved on August 12, 1975, to appoint respondent No.
That was the point of time when the institution was upgraded to the level of an Intermediate College by the order of the U.P. Board.
XXVI of 1976 for the Constitution of a Selection Committee for the purpose tyf appointment of teachers to the institution.
The appellant was also teaching Hindi in classes XIth and XIth since July, 1974.
Against these two orders of November 25, 1975 and July 16, 1976, respondent No.
On the companying into force of the U.P. Amendment Act XXVI, 1975, the Managing Committee of the Intermediate College passed a resolution on September 20, 1975, to let the appointments referred to above companytinue on an adhoc basis.
5 was appointed as lecturer in Hindi by the companymunication dated Augast 12, 1975.
The appellant, therefore, companytends that the appointment of respondent No.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 17, 1983, in Civil Misc.
He was appointed as a teacher in the C.T. Grade on July 12, 1971, in the Moti Lai Nehru Samarak Inter College, Azamgarh, which was then a high school.
This institution was raised to the level of an Intermediate College sometime in July, 1974.
5 in the Writ Petition before the High Court and the present respondent No.
Respondent No.
The latter by the order dated May 24, 1976, disposed of the appeals and companymunicated the decision to the Director of Education Dr. Mehrotra on the same day.
This selection was set at naught on the erroneous premise that the posts were number created on the establishment.
The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 U.P. Act No.
The extracted portion gives the impression that the Education Department suspected some mischief and, therefore, directed an enquiry with a view to bringing the guilty to book.
The appellant was one of the three persons companystituting the panel.
5 moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5 was the original petitioner.
Thereafter on February 9, 1975, a Selection Committee drew up a panel of three persons for appointment as a lecturer in Hindi in the said Intermediate College.
5 herein was a B.A., B.Ed, and appointed as a teacher in C.T. Grade on July 12, 1971.
5 herein companyld number apply for the said post since he did number possess the qualification of M.A. in Hindi.
When this mistake came to light, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, by his letter dated July 30, 1976, informed the management that the mistake had been companyrected by substituting C.T. Grade for L.T. Grade.
In this manner, companytends the appellant, his selection by a duly appointed Selection Committee made on February 9, 1975 was set at naught and his rightful claim for appointment was by passed.
This order was companyveyed by the Inspector of Schools by his letter dated September 19, 1974.
After the mistake was detected and the Director of Education was advised by the letter of May 24, 1976, to re examine the entire matter afresh that the appeal was allowed as companymunicated by the letter dated July 16, 1976.
The District inspector of Schools was informed about the selection on April 12, 1975.
However, on May 1, 1975, the District Inspector replied that there was numberquestion of according approval since numberpost was created for the appointment of a lecturer in Hindi.
Writ No.
It appears that against the order dated November 25, 1975, both the appellant and the managing companymittee filed appeals to the Government.
The High Court has placed reliance on the letter of May 1, 1975, which is itself based on a misunderstanding.
The regulations framed under the said Act prescribe the minimum qualification for a Hindi teacher for intermediate classes XIth and XIIth as M.A. in Hindi.
The qualifications for appointment as teacher were prescribed under the said Act The appointment of a teacher to be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee needed the approval of the Inspector of Schools.
Pursuant to the advertisement of July, 1974, the Selection Committee interviewed candidates including the appellant and empanelled three persons including the appellant.
1251 of 1976.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the said Writ Petition before the High Court are as under The appellant herein was respondent No.
5 herein was number in the picture.
The District Inspector of Schools was moved to accord approval which he did by his order dated November 25, 1975 clarifying that the duration of appointment will be for six months only.
The respondent No.
Respondent No.
It was only while hearing the appeal that the State Government numbericed the mistake and companymunicated the same by the letter of May 24, 1976.
The appellant was an M.A., B.Ed, and was appointed as a teacher in C.T. Grade with effect from August, 1, 1973, and since July 1974 he was teaching Hindi to the students of XIth and XIIth classes respondent NO.
5 herein as a lecturer in Hindi on an adhoc basis even though he was number qualified for appointment, ignoring the selection of the appellant on February 9, 1975 by a duly appointed Selection Committee.
5 who was a B.A., B.Ed.
However, it is significant to numbere that in paragraph 9 of the companynter filed by the Deputy Director of Education it was expressly averred in fact, the post was in existence in July, 1974, since the institution was raised to an Intermediate College.
In paragraph 2 of the said letter it was mentioned that he should examine the claims and companynter claims of the management and the appellant herein and thereafter issue proper orders.
It must also be realised that the appellant was selected by the Selection Committee on February 9, 1975.
One of the companyditions attached to the order was that six trained lecturers including one for Hindi shall be appointed to the institution.
In paragraph 12 it was further stated the post of lecturer in Hindi and Sociology was already created in July, 1974 when the institution was raised to an Intermediate College.
