Court No.2 Civil Writ Petition No. 3092 (M/S) of 2001 (Old No. 19085 of 1989) Subhash Chandra ……. Petitioner Versus The District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun and two others. ……… Respondetns …………… Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. The petitioner was selected as C.T. Grade teacher on 05.06.1989 in Intermediate College, Balawala, Dehradun in a process of selection in which the post was duly advertised and the selection committee was duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 The selection committee was headed by District Inspector of Schools concerned. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 08.06.1989 and she joined on 01.07.1989. After joining of the petitioner a departmental letter dated 20.06.1989 signed by Additional Director, Education was received in the college restraining the joining of the candidates, for the reason that the decision was taken by the Government to declare the C.T. Grade cadre as dying cadre and remaining C.T. Grade teachers were merged in L.T. Grade according to the policy to be formulated. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, vide impugned order dated 13.07.1989 on the basis of departmental communication dated 20.06.1989. The policy, declaring the C.T.Grade cadre as dying cadre, was notified on 11.08.1989, vide G.O.No. 3299/15-7/89-1 (136) 89 Shiksha Anubhag-7-dated 11th Aug., 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on the basis of departmental letter dated 20.06.1989 as the policy itself was notified on 11.08.1989. In the Government Order dated 11.08.1989, a ban was imposed on appointment against the C.T. Grade vacancies prospectively. The ban imposed to fill up the C.T. Grade vacancies came into force with effect from 11.08.1989 before which the petitioner had joined. The letter dated 20.6.1989 was a departmental communication which cannot be made basis for termination of the services of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner was selected and was teaching prior to 11.08.1989. Therefore, the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, as the departmental communication dated 20.06.1989 has not been shown to be statutory in nature. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.07.1989 impugned in the writ petition, contained in Annexure No. III to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue in service. (P.C.Verma, J.) 20.08.2003 P.Singh