Vineeta Tiwari vs Director of Education,U.P.Lucknow & Ors.

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition and connected writ petition No. 10235 of 1987 are being disposed of by a common judgment.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 2471995 AnnexureXI to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in her working as L.T grade teacher in Madan Mohan Kanodiya Balika Inter College, Farrukhabad.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the connected writ petitions. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Sushma Dixit who was C.T. grade on 681984 and in her place the petitioner was appointed as C.T. grade teacher. The R.I.G.S. granted approval to his short term appointment to the petitioner upto 3061985 or till the reversion of Smt. Sushma Dixit to C.T grade teacher whichever is earlier vide letter of the R.I.G.S. dated 881984 Annexure1 to the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner worked till 3061985. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed on the leave vacancy of Smt. Bhagwan Sridevi from 191986 to 2251987 in B.TC. grade vide Annexure2 to the writ petition No. 10235 of 1987. This appointment of the petitioner in B.TC. grade would have come to an end on 2051987. However, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 10235 of 1987 in this Court in which an interim order was passed that the petitioner shall continue as ad hoc appointee on the post in question till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joins the post and the service of the petitioner shall not come to an end on 2051987. Thus the petitioner continued on the basis of the aforesaid interim order even after 2551987. Subsequently, a vacancy of L.T grade teacher arose on the retirement of one Smt. Sharda Singh Chauhan on 3061992. The Committee of Management promoted the petitioner on 2321993 to L.T grade vide Annexure5 to the writ petition. This appointment letter dated 2321993 states that the appointment is subject to the approval by the R.I.G.S. The Accounts Officer granted financial approval to the petitioner''s promotion vide letter dated 2951993 Annexure6 to the writ petition and the Deputy Director of Education also granted approval vide his letter dated 1861993 Annexure7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner continued as L.T. grade teacher. The petitioner has alleged that she was entitled to increments but since the Committee of Management did not allow the increment she made representation to the District Inspector of Schools who issued direction to the Management which was not complied with and hence the respondent No. 3 passed an order of single operation of accounts. The Committee of Management challenged this order by writ petition No. 41624 of 1994 seeking declaration to set aside the promotion of the petitioner in L.T. grade. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 211995 with a direction that in case the Committee of Management complies with the direction of the respondent No. 3 regarding the annual increment the order of single operation may be recalled. True copy of the judgment of this Court dated 211995 is Annexure8. The Committee of Management made a representation to the Director of Education under Section 16E (10) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act to cancel the promotion of the petitioner vide Annexure 9 and the petitioner filed her reply vide Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 1 by order dated 2471995 allowed the said representation and cancelled the approval of promotion of the petitioner as well as the order of single operation of accounts. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management. It has been pointed out in paragraph 3 (d) of the counter affidavit that certain vacancies had been advertised in L.T. grade wherein teacher serving in C.T. grade in the recognised institutions were also entitled to promotion. The petitioner had filed writ petition No. 34265 of 1992 claiming right of promotion to L.T. grade but this writ petition had been dismissed on 191992. The relevant part of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 34265 of 1992 has been quoted in the impugned order dated 2471995. There after, the petitioner filed another writ petition No. 42099 of 1992, wherein also similar relief was prayed for promotion to L.T grade and by order dated 2891992, the petition was disposed of with the direction to the Management to decide the representation of the petitioner with in six weeks. The relevant part of this judgment was also quoted in the impugned order. In compliance with the judgment of this Court the representation of the petitioner dated 1291992 was considered and rejected on 31101992 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion to L.T. grade as she has never been appointed in C.T. grade or even in B.T.C. grade. Her appointment in B.T.C. grade was approved only upto 2051987. Thereafter, she continued only on the strength of the interim order of this Court in writ petition No. 10235 of 1987. It is alleged in paragraph 3(g) that thereafter the petitioner maneouvered the R.I.G.S. Kanpur and the District Inspector of Schools Farrukhabad who pressurised the Management to promote the petitioner even though such direction was wholly illegal. On the failure of the Management to comply with the said direction, the order of single operation was passed. Hence the petitioner made a representation to the Director of Education under Section 16E (10) which has been decided by order dated 771995. The Director held that the R.I.G.S. and D.I.O.S. had misused their powers in illegally pressurising the Committee of Management to promote the petitioner.

I have also perused the rejoinder affidavit and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

In my opinion, this petition and the connected writ petition have no merit. It is evident that the petitioner was never appointed regularly in C.T. grade or even in B.T.C. grade. She had been given appointment only on leave vacancy and that too for a limited period. It was only on the strength of the interim order in writ petition No. 10235 of 1987 that he continued in service, otherwise her service would come to an end on 2251987. Such an interim order cannot confer any right. A person who is not even regularly appointed as B.T.C. teacher can not by any stretch of imagination claim promotion as L.T. grade teacher.

Hence, both these writ petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.