JUDGMENT

M.N. Shukla, A.C.J. - The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc' basis as an Assistant Teacher (Drawing) in the Janta Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Alipur (Meerut) on 6 10-1975. The approval of the District Inspector of Schools was also obtained on 27-4-1976. She continued to function in her post thereafter but the trouble arose in 1979 when her tenor of work was suddenly disrupted. On 25-10-1979 the management of the College addressed a letter to the District Inspector of Schools alleging that it had passed a resolution, dated 16-4-1979, terminating the services of the petitioner. The allegation made in the aforesaid resolution was that the petitioner had initially secured her appointment by misrepresentation with regard to tier qualification and by presenting fake documents in proof of the same. On 13-12-1979 the District Inspector of Schools gave his approval to the action contemplated by the management. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-G (3) (c) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act but the same Was dismissed on 5-1-1980. In short, it may be slated that the Deputy Director of Education did not record any finding on the factual allegations made against the petitioner with regard to the alleged misrepresentation about her qualification but chose to dispose of the appeal on an entirely different ground, which now gives rise to the point for decision in the present writ petition. He held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time when she was given the appointment and, consequently, this was not a fit case in which the appeal should be allowed and her functioning as an Assistant Teacher in the College be given a seal of approval.

2. In the circumstances the point which arises for termination is as to whether the petitioner was dis entitled from function: as an Assistant Teacher in the College for lack of the prescribed qualifications at the time of her appointment. In the. period 1975-76 the matter of appointment of a teacher in a recognised institution was governed by section 16-F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, as it then, stood and which is reproduced below :

"16-F (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he -

(a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under sub-section (1) of section 16-E ;

(b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved in the case of principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Education and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector :

Provided that if the Inspector is satisfied that for any institution no candidate, who possesses all the prescribed qualifications, is available for appointment, he may permit the institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Such period may be extended with the period approval of toe Inspector.

Provided also that in the case of leave vacancy or of vacancy occurring for a part of the session of the institution it shall be lawful for the Committee of Management to appoint a Principal, Headmaster or teacher if information of such an appointment is immediately conveyed to the Inspector."

3. The minimum qualifications for the appointment of an Assistant Teacher (Drawing) were prescribed in Appendix A serial No. 3 which reads:

"3 High School Examination with Technical Drawing and any of the following qualifications :

(f) Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination Bombay."

4. Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, as it stood in 1975-76 provided the procedure applicable to the appointment of teachers. Regulation 9 of Chapter II dealt with the appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and Regulation 10 dealt with the appointment of teachers by promoti