1991 (9) TMI 372 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of cancellation of approval for ad hoc appointments.
2. Applicability of Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Justification of the order based on new reasons not originally stated.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Cancellation of Approval for Ad Hoc Appointments:
The writ petition challenges the order dated 6-9-1990 by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) canceling the approval granted on 27-8-1990 for the appointment of petitioners as ad hoc Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade. The D.I.O.S. initially approved the appointments but later suspended and subsequently canceled the approval, citing the lapse of eight posts under Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The court found that the D.I.O.S.'s reason for cancellation was unsustainable as it misapplied Regulation 20, which was inapplicable after the enforcement of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982.

2. Applicability of Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921:
The court examined whether the posts in dispute were surrendered and required fresh sanction from the Director of Education before making ad hoc appointments. Regulation 20 presupposes the Committee of Management's power to advertise vacancies within three months of their occurrence. However, after the enforcement of the Service Commission Act, the power to advertise and fill vacancies shifted exclusively to the Commission. The court concluded that Regulation 20 was inapplicable to the institution as the vacancies were to be notified to the Commission, not advertised by the Committee of Management. Thus, the D.I.O.S.'s reason for canceling the approval based on Regulation 20 was invalid.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing them an opportunity for a hearing. The court found that no notice was given to the petitioners, and the D.I.O.S. failed to prove that the Manager was asked to inform the petitioners about the hearing. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require direct notice to the affected parties. The failure to provide such notice rendered the D.I.O.S.'s order invalid due to the violation of natural justice.

4. Justification of the Order Based on New Reasons Not Originally Stated:
The learned Standing Counsel attempted to justify the cancellation order by introducing new reasons, such as collusion with a Clerk and the order being 'Farji' (fake). The court held that the validity of the D.I.O.S.'s order must be judged based on the reasons mentioned in the original order and cannot be supplemented by new reasons in the form of affidavits or otherwise. This view is supported by the precedent set in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Commissioner, AIR 1987 SC 851.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order dated 6-9-1990 by the D.I.O.S., reinstating the approval granted on 27-8-1990 for the petitioners' appointments. The petitioners are entitled to their salaries as Assistant Teachers from the date of joining. The writ petition was allowed with costs.