1. This intra-court appeal, under the Rules of the Court arises form the Judgment and order dated 24.07.1997 passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge
disposing of finally the writ petition No. 10853 of 1980 of the petitioner-respondent seeking the relief of permitting the petitioner-respondent to
resume the teaching work in the Institution and to make payment of salary to her w.e.f. 16.11.1976 onwards.
2. The brief facts, emerging from the record are that the petitioner-respondent No. 1, Shrimati Urmila Devi Singh was appointed as an untrained
teacher in Prahlad Rai Banarsi Lal Girls Intermediate College, Khalilabad district Basti (hereinafter described as the ""Institution"") on 8.10.1974.
Initially her appointment was for a fixed period i.e. for the academic session 1974-75. This appointment was duly approved by the Regional
Inspectress of Girls Schools, VII Recion, Gorakhpur. Petitioner-respondent No. 1, who was a graduate possessing Inter Grade drawing certificate
from Bombay was engaged to teach Art subject in the Institution. She was the Only Art teacher in the institution. Petitioner-respondent No. 1 was
allowed extension of her employment and she continued to teach in the institution till 15.11.1976. All the appointments granted by the appellant-
respondent were duly approved by the Regional Inspectress of Gins School, the appropriate authority. The Hon''ble Single Judge taking note of
para 3 of the 5th removal of Difficulties Order, 1976, has treated Shrimati Urmila Devi to have been appointed in substantive capacity from the
date of her acquiring the requisite training qualification in terms of para 3(d) of the said Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976. Para 3 of the 5th
Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 is relevant and is quoted below:
3. Where any person was appointed by the Committee of Management as a teacher on or before June 30, 1975 for any period as a temporary
measure with the approval or permission of the Inspector and such person has worked thereafter up to November, 15, 1976, he shall be deemed
to have been appointed in a substantive capacity.
(a) in case the appointment was initially made in a clear vacancy, from the date of appointment;
(b) in case the appointment was initially made in a leave vacancy or a vacancy occurring for a part of the session or otherwise then in clear
vacancy, from the date when such vacancy assumed the character of clear vacancy;
(c) in case the appointment was initially made on a post, the creation of which was sanctioned subsequently by a competent authority in that behalf
from the date of such sanction;
(d) in case he did not possess the prescribed training qualification at the time of initial appointment from the date of acquisition of such training
qualification.
Provided that in cases referred to in Sub-clauses (a)(b) and � such person possesses the prescribed qualification or has been exempted from the
requirements of minimum qualifications and was duly selected and appointed in accordance with law for the time being in force.
1.
EXPLANATION:-The period during which any such teacher has, between the date of his appointment and November, 15, 1976 ceased to work
for any reason not arising out of his own request shall not continued a break in to service for purposes of this clause.
3. It appears from the record that the Hon''ble Single Judge after carefully delving into the records has found that the respondent No. 1 was
appointed before 30.6.1975 (i.e. 8.10.1974) and she continued in set vice till 15.11.1976 and by virtue of her initial appointment, which was made
before 30th June, 1975 and her continuance in service till 15 11.1976 the respondent became entitled to be appointed in substantive capacity. It
further appears from the record that she was prevented to work after 15.11.1976 and she was not paid her salary. After pursuing the departmental
remedies available to her, she ultimately filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10853 of 1980, in which an interim order was granted on 22.1.1981.
The Management of the Institution and the concerned Regional Inspectress of Girls School were directed to pay her salary and it was made open
to them to take work or not to take work from her. Despite all attempts by the Management to get the interim order vacated, the same had
continued ill the disposal of the writ petition vide Judgment and order dated 24.7.1997 by which the writ petition of Shrimati Urmila Singh was
allowed and she was held to be entitled for substantive appointment and was allowed all consequential benefits arising out of such appointment and
continuance in the service.
4. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel for the appellant has assailed the Judgment and order of the Hon''ble Single Judge on the ground
that the Hon''ble Single Judge has wrongly applied the provisions of 5th Removal of Diffuculties order, 1976 as the same was not applicable in the
present case. The petitioner-respondent was an untrained teacher at the time of her initial appointment Secondly, the Hon''ble single judge has
failed to appreciate that the petitioner-respondent did not obtain the training certificate at any point of time end her engagement in the Institution
was in the nature of stop gap arrangement as per exigencies prevailing in the institution. Her services had automatically come to an end after the
Stipulated period indicated in the appointment orders.
5. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent has opposed the appeal and reiterated his submissions made
in the body of the writ petition, counter affidavit and oilier documents. As per the learned Counsel for the respondents six clear permanent posts of
teachers fell vacant-in the Institution. Shrimati Urmila Singh, who was possessing minimum prescribed qualifications meant for an Art teacher, had
applied against one of the posts. She was appointed by the Management of the Institution and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools
Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur had accorded approval of her appointment. Initially the approval was granted on temporary basis for the academic
session 1974-75 vide letter dated; 1.10.1974 issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. Approval was
further granted on the request of the Management which had continued to retain the petitioner-respondent in service in the academic sessions
1975-76 also. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to various provisions contained in the Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Orders, which were issued between 18.8.1975 to 16.8.1977. According to him, the case
of respondent No. 1 was entirely covered by the 5th Removal of Difficulties Order, 1976 and 7th Removal of Difficulties Order issued on
16.8.1977. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 was undergoing training and she had acquired the requisite training in 1976-77 batch of the teachers
and after the introduction of 7th Removal of Difficulties Order she should have been deemed to have been regularized. He has drawn attention of
the Court to para 4 of the Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order issued on 16.8.1977. Respondent No. 1 has been continuously teaching Art
subject to the students studying in classes 6th to 10th in the Institution. She was possessing the special qualification having completed Bombay Art
Course with technical art subject. Presently, she is a graduate and has also undergone training as a teacher of 1976-77 batch. Her conduct and
performance as an Art teacher has always remained satisfactory. She was prevented to work in the middle of academic session i.e. 17.11.1976
giving cause of action to the petitioner-respondent to approach the appropriate authorities and the Court for redressal of her grievances. The
Hon''ble Single Judge took into account all the facts and has rightly allowed the writ petition.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, we find force in the submissions made by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner-respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, Shrimati Urmila Singh was appointed as an Art teacher on 8.10.1974. The
Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur had approved her appointment and subsequent extension of her services in
the Institution as an Art teacher. Respondent No. 1 was holding the requisite qualification at the time of for initial appointment which is evident from
the approval accorded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and as per the observations of the Hon''ble
Single Judge in the impugned judgement. The case of the petitioner-respondent is also covered by the relevant Removal of Difficulties Orders as
stated above. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner during her continuance in the Institution had undergone the requisite
training. She successfully completed her training and had also obtained B.A. Degree. She was already possessing Bombay Art Course Certificate
at the time of her initial appointment. It is no one''s case neither of the Management of the Institution nor the District. Inspeciress of Girls Schools
that her work and performance as an Art teacher was not satisfactory. It is noteworthy that the respondent No. 1 Shrimati Urmila Singh, the
teacher has been continuously working as Art Teacher in the Institution for the last more than 32 years. She has been imparting instructions in Art
subject to the students from class 6 to 10th. This Court has granted indulgence at the time of the admission of the writ petition in the year 1981 and
had declined to vacate the interim order despite serious attempt by the appellant. The interim order has now merged in the final order allowing the
writ petition of Shrimati Urmila Singh, respondent. 1. The Hon''ble Single Judge has carefully appreciated the relevant facts and the various
provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order contained in the Education Manual. The order of the Hon''ble Single judge, in our opinion, does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. We, therefore, do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Hon''ble Single Judge. The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed
summarily.