Order 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, for the Management and for the fourth respondent. The facts of the case show that the appellant was appointed to the Pandit Nehru Secondary School for Academic Years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 in the post of Junior Clerk and this is clear from Annexure P-1 and the other documents filed under that annexure. It is also clear from Annexure P-2, the order of the authority concerned, the Education Department, dated 31.1.1996 that the Headmaster of the School sent a proposal to the said authority for approval of the appointment of the appellant as Junior Clerk in this School. The said authority accordingly granted such approval on 31.1.1996 to the appointment of the appellant as Junior Clerk in the School in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 14.6.1993. Para 5 of the said order also discloses that the appointments are made on the aided classes and, therefore, they are sanctioned. 3. However, as things stood thus, it appears that on 23.6.1996, the fourth respondent was appointed as Junior Clerk in the School in place of the appellant. The order appointing the fourth respondent shows that such appointment of the fourth respondent was in respect of the post of Junior Clerk in the School, in the place of the appellant. Therefore, this document also reveals that the initial appointment of the appellant was in the School and the appointment of the fourth respondent in his place was also in the School. 4. Therefore, the contention raised by the Management and the fourth respondent that the appellant was appointed in the College which is also under the same Management, is not right and cannot be accepted. The Tribunal and the High Court have not referred to the above documents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied upon the joining report dated 10.9.1991 by the appellant which does indicate that the said letter was addressed to the Principal of the College, but we are of the view that the said document cannot affect the substantive rights of the appellant as are disclosed from the annual orders of the appointment which show that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the School.
In that view, the order of the appointment of the fourth respondent on 23.6.1996 in the post of Junior Clerk occupied by the appellant in the School has to be set aside and the appellant is to be restored to the Office in the School. We direct accordingly. The orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court are accordingly set aside and the appellant is restored back as Junior Clerk in the School of the Management. 6. Though he was made to work in the College up to 14.7.1997, it appears he has not been paid his salary from the date he was made to attend the College after the appointment of the 4th respondent on 23.6.1996. The appellant will, therefore, have back wages if the appellant had not been paid salary for any period prior to 14.7.1997 and till the date he is allowed to join in the School. The said back wages shall also be paid to him. 7. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. (C.R.) Appeal allowed. ************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Manohar v. Sanjay Education Society & Ors., 1999(7) Supreme 455 00022