m c') ;^ ^l.'a^. /-- iTHBM^N'igffiESi-iiigi-faii^iitii^R^^i-iiKtiiseaitRi-ife '"ATSjeSriSWSlKlIII^^'3:i"s'?'!'::.^??::'^ :vii^^^t^MWo^S. riOif:s2(Ml& ^Rffi!>IN^K<BliK^R3^1iiK;Nllg8g3s§BffigafiSli^B^l^ ^iaagSiBttiaBIIIfflaiBaWiMgBiiMiEaSIJMBMjgiJliffiB'K jABeGiEl-aSENfll^w: ^BEnaasiBR^ .^:: ^ ^.S^MaiM'IIHftEii;^':^ -\m. -:\ ^ :••^:-::;.;:: . ?:•:;v :.»(3KE3-:S5jSBX S,;' ;! ,;^. :. ':,' :;. ; -:,;i::l. ::- ^:;,s/a':siast ; •§.MAKKAD, ,:• :• :1:':: •^;. •^ ; ^: Y'^.(ii^^'f :^©iy N@'tAil;$;-^ ^^':?'''fl ;Wi.'.;/-: •.T;S:''^S:i:;& .^:^::. '••••• :,: '•':;:'::''^i-';'l'::£;t^^^ !@^B|^^,i?^EA(3;|@i,;|^:;^t-.^S-;I^S.:'^.KA ¥,^iI©Mll|lfiK^ ^^'^W©G l^PgR,:l: ^';,::;..ll:ffSW^-^^If>aR:!{G.i:!6.) •• ;;:^^^^ VERSC)!S..'.;'-:;''^' ;;•::. "':"::-' • •^-•KW RESj>8tNffi>ENfS ^' ;§t<|iS?<ilfai'i-i|ntT^s6ii^ii-i,,^3 MSIIJil-'ll--ThlE:|SS.GKE% ,.ii SEiWBit^ffl8Ci-(MteilS:KJB ?B|ll|gT|E(aN,|D.iKs|.|;|Bt|igBill| .[^ R.'^T: :,••:.!•: .;:.:^%v^ ^ Sffl^ ^^•'•.•^'^^*/;^!^:';.•'"..; ^; ^.,:.^:.i";;^'.'^ii iIl,I|iBEWNI%I'ft|l!(S'l'|Ei3iiS,a:t:^g! '@H'ffie(WSnRH^:^::|:;::'';;':::'!'^ .m|T{3.:'-|;RAI^UR:i((]::'G:.0:l-::i:;?.i::l:^,J |||i||CT|^||||Ell||j|l||>|>g|||!i||j lBjia^lgll,i-i|ii|^i^|M|j|| ^-iSliiSWIfiM§i91iaW@lT%it,|i;; Btiijpi8cBiiliilffil%'lli3 ^UWWiB^iEM^^RiiSjgSli.li ^i:lia^<a;Ba il|ffi| .~rHe'ap]pei|!laftt: @:i8ISIBBilBKKBB8EIK88Blff?B:li!MllM31JRi int^:i-i|»itjii;l||Ni|IUMtlt^i8t.igntj||i|{uMii|j||:| 11 Bll Hl B ]ii!fi.!! K 1»IB !t'!l:'!!II!MS;!( ^<E'13!'3&t^~ ,,?,;>•"••% ~*^ ;ae;<& ,'g<^p-- .^^J^: \" HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. 28 OF 2008 1 a-° APPELLANT RESPONDENTS G.S. Makkad Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. OUDDUSI BB HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ SSiS!S8ti& s^^^^^- PRESENT:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Ku. Deepali, Panel Lawye'r, for the State. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, A^vocate, for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (17-6-2010) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and orderdated 31-1-2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3753/1998 dismissing ftie writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are thaf one late H.L. Jaggi was working as Lecturer in the institution namely S.S. Kalibadi Higher Secondary School, Raipur. He was teaching Physics and Mathematics, but due to his death in the year 1985, the post of Lecturer became vacant. Since the State Government had imposed a ban on appointment on the post of Lecturer in the schools, therefore the writ appellant namely Shri Gurubachan Singh Makkad was given direct appointment as Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 5- 11-1985, which continued again vide order dated 11-7- 1986. He possessed the qualification of M. Sc. ' (Mathematics). Thus it is clear that in place of late H.L. Jaggi who was a science lecturer teaching Physics and Mathematics, the writ appellant was appointed who was M.Sc. (Mathematics) but was not given the post of Lecturer due to ban imposed by the State Government and was given the post of Upper Division Teacher. "'^. ''o^ ^ :'""3.^.?tF^"'f"' Uiaiaja'a^i^8- ^ On 14-8-89 Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya, M.P. issued a circular to all the Joint Directors, Lok Shikshan, M.P. lifting ban on appointment of Lecturers with the condition that those who were given appointment as Upper Division Teachers in place of Lecturers, they can be given appointment as Lecturers provided the number of posts in those institutions should not exceed to the nuraber of posts which were existed on 1-4-1979. It was also mentioned therein that circular was issued with the approval of the Commissioner. Thereafter, the Principal of S.S. Kalibadi Higher Secondary School sent a recommendation for appointment of Lecturers of Physics and Maths subjects by'direct recruitment. Thereafter vide order dated 13-7-1990, the writ appellant was given appointment to the post of Lecturer with effect from 9-7- 90 in anticipation of the approval of the Commissioner and that he would be entitled to get the salary of Upper Division Teacher till the approval receipts, but the approval was not received and objection was raised that the appointment should not have been made directly but promotion should have been made; and according to the statutory rules, 50% posts of Lecturers should be Elled up by making promotion and 50% by direct appointment. Anyhow the case of the writ appellant is that he could have been appointed as Lecturer pursuant to the circular of the Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya dated 14-8-89 issued with the approval of the Commissioner and if there would not have been any ban on the appointment of Lecturer, the writ appellant would have been appointed as Lecturer instead of Upper Division Teacher. The circular dated 14- 8-89 permitted appointment on the post of Lecturers from the Upper Division Teachers who were given appointment against the posts of Lecturer, but this fact was not considered, rather one time, the objection was raised that direct appointment should not have been made and later on, another objection was raised by the respondents that "•i..>.'':'-.. ^ since the post was sanctioned in Arts side, the writ appellant should not have been promoted as he was liable to be promoted on Science side. The respondents forgotten that the writ appellant was appointed against the post of Lecturer in a vacancy^which had arisen due to the death of late H.L. Jaggi who was teaching Physics and Maths and was holding the post from Science side. Further also that vide circular dated 26-8-1971 issued by the Director, Lok Shikshan addressed to Sambhagiya Shiksha Adhikari, Raipur mentioning that six posts of L'ecturer can be kept in Higher Secondary School (,and more than that is not permissible, out of which, 3 for Arts side and remaining 3 for Science side but m case, more post are wanted for any side, the posts can be shifted from other side, but should not exceed the number of sanctioned posts i.e. maximun-i 6. Therefore, even if the post from Arts side was sanctioned, it could be shifted to Science side for the purpose of making appointment by promotion in case the respondents had not agreed that late H.L. Jaggi was a Lecturer of Science side against which the writ appellant was given appointment. At this stage, a copy of letter dated 15-3-2010 has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Institution/ respondent No. 3 issued by the State Government, School Education Department addressed to the Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya, CG sanctioning the posts of Lecturer of Political Science and change of posts of Political Science and History to the post of English and Maths. It is a matter of consideration that a person who was appointed against the post of Lecturer as Upper Division Teacher in Science subject in the year 1986 is having no status till date because some time, objection has been raised that he could not have been appointed directly on the post of Lecturer and some time, objection has been raised that he could not have been promoted against the .•.•^^^^ISS^^S^.^V^T^^.-'- :"ll-'.--r cti,.^. y / %. "ffiSc-sf:!' ^ 8. Arts subject as he was appointed against Science subject without considering that he was appointed against a clear vacancy of Lecturer of Science side. Anyhow, in view of the abi^ve mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the respondents to consider the case of the writ appellant for approval on the post of Lecturer within a period of 2 months. In view of the above, rejection of fhe approval of the writ appellant on the post of Lecturer is quashed. The writ appeal is disposed of. Sdf- .M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge