Petitioner had approached this Court earlier seeking sanction of two additional posts of Lecturer in the institution on the allegation that in the year 1973, institution was granted recognition for Intermediate classes in six (6) subjects, while only four posts of Lecturer were created. The petitioner, therefore, requested that as against the two subjects qua, which post of Lecturer had not been created, the State may be directed to create two additional posts of Lecturers in the institution. Writ petition (no.66606 of 2008) filed by the petitioner for the purpose was decided under order dated 05.01.2009 permitting the petitioner to approach the Director and the Director in turn was required to examine the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound manner.
The Director under the order impugned dated 15.06.2009 has refused to sanction two additional posts of Lecturers in the institution on the ground (a) in the year 1973, recognition was granted for Intermediate examination in six (6) subjects, but only four posts of Lecturer was created. For 32 years, the petitioner institution could carry on with the teaching in the subject qua which post of Lecturer had not created. Therefore, at this stage, creation of two posts of Lecturers is not required, (b) under Government Order dated 09th December 1986, a ban has been imposed on creation of new post in recognized Intermediate Colleges.
At the very outset, this Court may decide that when the State decides to provide financial assistance to any Intermediate College bringing the institution within the purview of U.P. Act no. 24 of 1971, two obligations arise automatically: (a) There must be sanction of requisite number of posts in the institution, so that the teaching work may be carried on smoothly and no hindrance is caused in the education of the students; and (b) that the institution is not permitted to charge anything over and above that prescribed as fee by the State Government from the students to be admitted in such aided institution. This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the fee, which has been permitted to be released from the students by the aided Intermediate Colleges, is too meager an amount to provide for payment of salary to teachers, who are to be appointed by the Management from its own resources.
In my opinion such situation only management adversely affects the teaching of the subjects concerned. In fact, no teacher for the subject is appointed, the students are only permitted to undertake the Intermediate examinations without any actual teaching of the subject concerned having been done in the institution.
Such situations have to be avoided in the best interest of the education. Therefore, the State Government must revisit the entire issue pertaining to creation of post in recognized and aided Intermediate Colleges. The State Government must ensure creation of requisite number of posts in any aided and recognized institution, so that the institutions have requisite number of teachers duly qualified for imparting education in all the subjects for which, recognition has been granted. Interest of education in a democracy is paramount. Education cannot be permitted to suffer because of lack of creation of posts in Intermediate Colleges and lack of will in the Committee of Management to generate resources on its own for making appointment of teachers for imparting educations in subjects, for which posts have not been created by the State Government.
On merits, I am of the opinion that merely because Committee of Management has somehow managed to impart education in the two subjects at Intermediate College, for which no post of teacher has been created by the State Government for decades, it will not mean that such situation must continue in perpetuity. The State must respond to the request for additional posts of Lecturers in the two subjects and such decision must be taken promptly.
So far as, the ban imposed under the Government Order dated 09.12.1986 is concerned, suffice is to record that more than 26 years have elapsed from the date ban was imposed. Ban cannot be permitted to be the shelter for the State Government for not creating posts avoiding compliance of the statutory provisions of U.P. Act No. 29 of 1971 for decades together.
Ban on appointments, which has continued for 26 years practically negates the statutory provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. It can at best be a short term measure to achieve a particular purpose.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made reference to certain institutions, where posts of Lecturers have been created subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order dated 09.12.1986. Reply given to paragraph 14 of the writ petition is wholly vague i.e. the facts of the present petition are not similar to other petitions. No material facts have been disclosed to establish the distinction pleaded. In the totality of the circumstances, noticed above, this Court feels it fit and proper to direct by the State Government to revisit the entire scenario pertaining to the creation of posts in the Intermediate Colleges, which are on grant in aid. The State Government must also reconsider the continuance or otherwise of the Government Order dated 19.12.1986 as well the grievance of the petitioner in the matter of discrimination, which have been practised.
Let the exercise be completed by respondent no.1 by means of reasoned speaking order preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The order impugned in the writ petition shall abide by the order to be passed by the State Government as indicated above.
With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.7.2012 N.S.Rathour