JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. This petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Shri Narayan Sinha Inter College, Sarai Harku, district Jaunpur, with the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 24.6.2000 passed by, the Director of Education (Madhyamik) U. P., Allahabad, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which he has held that after the ban imposed in the year, 1986, the management has appointed teachers in two subjects without creation of any posts.
3. The case of the petitioners is that by letter dated 22.7.1977 the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad gave recognition of the subject Geography for teaching in the Intermediate classes of the institution and permission was also granted for opening classes of Geography by order dated 30.12.1977, with certain conditions. The Manager of the college made an application on 14.12.1982, to the D.I.O.S. for creation of the post of the lecturer in Geography, The District Inspector of Schools recommended the matter for creation of the post of lecturer in Geography to the Deputy Director of Education on 22.7.1983, who in turn recommended the matter to the Director of Education for creation of one post of lecturer in Geography.
4. It is stated that petitioner No. 3 was appointed by the Committee of Management on 1.7.1991 in anticipation of the post sanctioned by the Director of Education, but no post was sanctioned. Thereafter a Writ Petition No. 10767 of 1998 was filed by the petitioners for direction to the
Director of Education to consider the case for creation of the post. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the Director of Education to decide the same within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
5. On 24.6.2000, the Director of Education by the impugned order had rejected the representation for creation of the post on two grounds. Firstly, there was a ban imposed by the State Government for creation of posts in the institution in the year, 1986 and secondly, the institution was granted permission for opening the Intermediate classes on their own expenses.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the first ground was not tenable in the eyes of law as the State Government had created a number of posts in various institutions after 1986. Copies of the orders for creating the posts have been annexed as Annexures 6 to 14 to the writ petition. On this basis, it is alleged that the action of the Director of Education is discriminatory.
7. With regard to the second ground of rejection, in the impugned order, it was submitted that the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Joint Director of Education had recommended the case of the petitioners for creation of the post of lecturer in Geography, but the Director of Education has simply misdirected himself while passing the order as he has failed to record any reasons as to whether the post of lecturer in Geography in the institution is required or not.
8. The last contention of the petitioners is that the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Mrs. Rajni Wali, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 870, has considered the identical controversy and has held that where the permission was granted by the competent authority for opening Intermediate classes and the appointments having been made by the Committee of Management, the teachers should be paid similar salary, which was being paid to other
employees of the institution for which grant-in-aid is received.
9. The first contention of the petitioners has no force. There is no material before this Court to show the basis in which circumstances the State Government has created posts in various institutions after the year 1986. If any appointment has been made by relaxation for ban in special circumstances, it would not vest any legal right to the petitioners until and unless it is shown that they have been discriminated in similar circumstances.
10. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is not in dispute that the permission was granted for opening Intermediate classes of Geography in the institution on the condition that the management will pay the salary of such teachers. This means that the State Government had not granted financial sanction to the posts. The State Government is, therefore, not obliged to pay the salary of the teachers appointed by the management for teaching Intermediate classes. Thus, according to the terms and conditions granting permission, it is the management , who will pay the salary to the lecturer of Geography.
11. The third contention of the petitioners is wholly misconceived. The Director of Educatton was not required to give any reason whether the post of lecturer in Geography in the institution is required or not. If the post of lecturer in Geography in the institution is not required, the management have to pay the salary to such lecturer, otherwise the management may terminate the services of the surplus teacher in accordance with law.
12. The last contention of the petitioner seeking parity with the appellants Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Mrs. Rajni Wali and Ors. (supra) is also misconceived, The facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case and the ratio decided in the case is also different. It was a case in which the controversy was regarding equal pay for equal work, whereas the controversy in the present case is
whether the salary of the lecturer in Geography is to be paid by the State Government or by the management according to the terms of the permission granted by the State to the management for opening Intermediate classes. It is noteworthy that it was the management which wanted to open new classes and had asked for permission from the State Government which was granted only on the condition that the management will pay the salary to the teachers.
13. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.