HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.134 of 2006 (S/B) Mohd. Shakir Hasan …Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ...Respondents Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Dated : December 27th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In 2006, this writ petition was filed, seeking salary in the scale applicable to the post of Lecturer (English). It was contended that in Polytechnics there is none, nor there can be any post of English (Instructor), for English is a language, and to teach such a language, Laboratory demonstrations are not held for which instructors are appointed. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that even to teach English there are sanctioned posts of English Instructors, and in the Polytechnic where the petitioner is presently serving, there are two posts of English (Instructor), one of which is occupied by the petitioner. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit. 2. Be that as it may. It appears that petitioner was working in a Polytechnic as a Clerk. The Principal of the 2 Polytechnic made a representation to the Joint Director to the effect that for the purpose of teaching English, services of petitioner may be utilised. By a letter, the Joint Director permitted the Principal of the Polytechnic to engage petitioner as an Instructor. In terms thereof, on 13th November, 1987 petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as English Instructor, on the condition that he shall work as such, until such time a regular person is appointed. A regular person was thereupon selected and appointed. In that view of the matter, it was proposed to revert back petitioner to his original post of Clerk. Petitioner challenged the said decision before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court after noting the contention that in view of the appointment made, after selection, services of petitioner should be terminated, directed that in case petitioner continuous to serve the department, he shall be paid admissible salary in accordance with Rules. This order was passed on 21st April, 2000. Petitioner thereupon continued to serve as Instructor, since he was not reverted back to the post of Clerk and as such, he continued to receive salaries admissible to Instructor. In 2003, petitioner was regularised as Instructor. Subsequent thereto, he made a representation that he should be treated as Lecturer and should be paid his salaries admissible to Lecturers from the date he was appointed on adhoc basis. That having been rejected, present writ petition has been filed. Apart from the factual dispute whether there can or cannot be an Instructor in English, petitioner did not, nor does have the minimum eligible qualification of being appointed as Lecturer in 3 English since he has passed M.A. Examination in third division, whereas the essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer is Masters Degree with at least 55% marks. We accordingly, dismiss this writ petition. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.12.2010 Arti