High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sandhya Srivastava & Others v. Regional Inspector Of Girls School & Others - WRIT - A No. 16719 of 1984  RD-AH 8323 (2 May 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner no. 1 claims to have been appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Sociology against a clear vacancy vide letter of appointment dated 27.1.1984 appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner no. 2 was appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Economics and her appointment was approved by respondent no. 1 vide modified order dated 22.2.1984, appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Likewise, petitioner no. 3 was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against a permanent vacancy and her appointment too was approved by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 28.3.84, appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Their appointment came to an end w.e.f. 30.6.1984 but in the exigencies of work, the Committee of Management resolved on 22.7.1984 to retain the petitioners in service for the academic session 1984-85. The aforesaid resolution was sent to the respondent no. 1 for approval but was not responded.
In the meantime, U.P. Intermediate Colleges (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments)Bill, 1984 was introduced providing regularization of the services of ad hoc teachers who were appointed between 31.7.1981 and 30.6.1983.
On coming to know that the Management was going to advertise the vacancies for fresh recruitment, the petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction by means of instant writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners and for commanding the respondents not to make fresh appointments on theposts held by them.
Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 7.9.2006 and prayed that the writ petition may be decided by directing the Administrator to decide the representation of the petitioners within some time frame.
Paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit is as under :-
"2. That the dispute of the period July 1984 to February 1986 is still not clear till date. The petitioners tried their best for the payment of the abrupted period but no positive response has been arrived since last many years. The respondent no. 1 anyhow start making payment from 1986 regularly. The petitioners' grievance regarding the salary of that period only positively considered in the year 2002 and the letter for that was issued by the office of the respondent no. 1 and 2 to decide the dispute in a specific time period. The copy of the official letter dated 29.8.2002 of respondent no. 1 is being annexed as Annexure S.A 2 to this affidavit.
Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to move a comprehensive representation to the respondent no. 1 within 15 days from today which shall be decided by respondent no. 1 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law in terms of letter dated 29.8.2002 contained in Annexure S.A. 2 to the Supplementary Affidavit within a period of two months thereafter. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.