In both the aforesaid Second Appeals, the order dated 28.10.1999, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehgarh, Farrukkhabad, has been challenged. Since in both the Appeals, the same order is under challenge and the questions involved are the same, therefore, both the Appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
The brief facts of the case are that Ram Prakash Yadav filed a suit being Suit No. 298 of 1990 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the committee of management from interfering in his work being carried on as a Teacher of the College. The claim of the plaintiff was that he has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher against the vacancy occurred on account of transfer of one Jagdish Chandra Tiwari and an appointment letter has been issued and in pursuance thereof he joined the College as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on adhoc basis on 30th January, 1985. After his joining, he started discharging his duties as an Assistant Teacher, but was not paid salary for the same, though the process for approval was initiated by the Management of the College and the documents for the same have also been sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad and since the payment of salary was not made to him, he filed the suit against the committee of management as well as against the State of U.P. and District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad for mandatory injunction to the State of U.P. and the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad to issue an order of approval to his appointment and further a mandatory injunction was also requested against the State of U.P. and the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad as well as against the committee of management of the College to ensure the payment of salary. The plaintiff also sought order of prohibitory injunction against the committee of management of the College restraining to interfere with the working of the plaintiff.
The committee of management filed the written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable. The averments made in Paragraph nos. 1 to 12 have been denied. As an additional plea, it was stated that Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was never appointed as a teacher in Janta Higher Secondary School nor he ever submitted his resignation in the aforesaid institution. There was no post of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari. In fact, Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was not a regular teacher in the school nor his appointment was made in the institution by its managing committee. He was appointed as an extension teacher under the scheme of the State Government. Salary of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was also paid by the State Government. Vide order dated 25th June, 1982, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad, Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was transferred from the institution to elsewhere. Thus, on account of the transfer of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari no post became vacant and as such appointment of the plaintiff in his place did not arise. It has also been stated that the alleged appointment order dated 28th January, 1985 of the plaintiff is incorrect and the alleged appointment letter is a forged document which the plaintiff got prepared in collusion with some members of the staff of the institution. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiff never joined the services in the institution nor the manager of the institution, defendant no.3, submitted any paper to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad on 2nd February, 1985 or on any other date for the purposes of making the payment of salary to the plaintiff out of Joint Salary Account of the institution nor the defendant no.3 submitted any salary bill of the plaintiff for payment of salary. The manager of the institution did not send any letter dated 15th March, 1989 to the District Inspector of Schools. The alleged letter dated 15th March, 1989, if any, also is a forged document, which has been prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with some members of the staff College. The allegation of the plaintiff that he has been continuously working as an Assistant Teacher has also been denied.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that the plaintiff was appointed as an Assistant Teacher against the vacancy occurred on account of transfer of one Jagdish Chandra Tiwari and the appointment letter has been issued in pursuance of which he joined the College as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on adhoc basis on 30th January, 1985 and after joining he started discharging his duties as an Assistant Teacher, but has not been paid salary for the same. He further submitted that the process of approval was initiated by the Management of the College and documents have also been sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad and since the salary has not been paid to the plaintiff-respondent, the suit has been filed. Since the plaintiff-respondent worked as a C.T. Grade Teacher, his services are to be regularised and the salary is to be paid. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar, reported in JT 1997 (7) SC 645 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Mangla Prasad Inter College Society, Allahabad and another vs. Director of Education, Allahabad and others, reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1418 and Radha Raizada and others vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551.
I have considered rival submissions.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
Both the courts below found that the plaintiff has not been engaged against the vacancy. Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was not a regular teacher in the School nor his appointment was made in the institution by the managing committee. He was appointed as an Extension Teacher under the scheme of the State Government. The salary of Jagdisch Chandra Tiwari was also being paid by the State Government. He has been transferred by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad vide order dated 25th June, 1982. Thus, on account of transfer of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari, no post fell vacant and, therefore, the appointment of the plaintiff as an Assistant Teacher did not arise. Finding has been recorded that the alleged appointment order dated 28th January, 1985 is incorrect and is a forged document and the plaintiff has got it prepared with the collusion of some members of the staff of the institution. Plaintiff never joined the institution nor the Manager of the institution ever submitted any paper to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad for approval. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is not able to show any document by which his appointment has ever been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkahabad.
The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are not applicable to the present case.
Both the appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the Second Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :-3rd May, 2012 bgs/