Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 573 (ORI)

Prasanna Kumar Dash v. State of Orissa

2016-07-28

B.K.NAYAK

body2016
JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - Both these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law relating to termination of the service of Sri Prasann Kumar Dash, petitioner in OJC No. 5292 of 1994 and consequential appointment of Smt. Radharani Sarangi, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004 in place of Sri Prasanna Kumar Dash as Lecturer in Education in D.R. Nayapalli College, Bhubaneswar. On intervention, Smt. Radharani Sarangi has been impleaded as opposite party no.5 in OJC No. 5292 of 1994. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.For brevity and convenience the petitioner in OJC No. 5292 of 1994 and petitioner in W.P(C) No. 6066 of 2004 are referred to respectively as petitioner and opposite party no. 5 in the judgment. 3.The undisputed facts are as follows: (a) D.R. Nayapalli College was an unaided college recognized by the Government and is affiliated to the Counsel of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and Utkal University. Vide Office order No. 101 (a) dated 14.10.1987(Annexure-1), the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Education in D.R. Nayapalli College. While continuing as such, the Principal of the college (opposite party no. 4) by his letter dated 23.03.1993 (Annexure-4) called for an explanation from the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had not taken classes on 18.3.1993. On the same day, i.e., 23.3.1993, the Principal issued another letter (Annexure-5) to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had absconded from duty on 20.03.1993 and requested him to resume his duty immediately. Again by a 3rd letter of the same date, i.e., 23.3.1993 (Annexure-6), the Principal of the college alleged that the petitioner had not singned the attendance register on 10.03.1993, as the petitioner did not come to the college, and subsequently put his signature on the cross mark on the attendance register without permission of the competent authority. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit an explanation. (b) To all the aforesaid allegations the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 29.3.1993(Annexure-7) denying some of the allegations and explaining some others. On 16.04.1993, the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College issued letter dated 16.4.1993 (Annexure-8) to the petitioner asking him to explain within five days as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for certain alleged misconduct committed by him during the conduct of annual H.S.C. Examination, 1993. On 16.04.1993, the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College issued letter dated 16.4.1993 (Annexure-8) to the petitioner asking him to explain within five days as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for certain alleged misconduct committed by him during the conduct of annual H.S.C. Examination, 1993. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.04.1993 (Annexure-9) to the Secretary denying the allegations. (c) It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of submission of explanation by the petitioner, without initiating any disciplinary proceeding and without issuing notice of any charges and without holding any enquiry, the Secretary of the College, opposite party no. 3 passed order dated 15.05.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner. On the same day, the principal-opposite party no. 4, in his turn passed another order dated 15.5.1993 terminating the service of the petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Secretary. It is stated that none of the termination orders passed by opposite party nos. 3 and 4 served on the petitioner. The petitioner obtained an extract of the order passed by the Principal (Annexure-10) which had been notified on the notice board of the college. (d) Challenging the termination order under Annexure-10, the petitioner filed OJC No. 4542 of 1993 before this Court. By order dated 19.7.1993, the said writ petition was disposed of holding that an appeal was provided for against the termination order, since the college was an unaided one, and that should the petitioner prefer an appeal before the Director, Higher Education (opposite party no. 2), the said authority would consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Upon disposal of OJC No. 4542 of 1993, the petitioner filed an appeal before opposite party no. 2 challenging the termination order under Annexure-10. Opposite party no. 2 issued notice to the petitioner as well as the management to participate in hearing and the petitioner appeared through his advocate. The appeal was adjourned from date to date for hearing and lastly it was fixed to 07.01.1994 on which date the petitioner’s application for adjournment was taken note of by the Director and the principal/governing Body of the college was directed to give reply to the questionnaire for compliance before 24.01.1994. The appeal was adjourned from date to date for hearing and lastly it was fixed to 07.01.1994 on which date the petitioner’s application for adjournment was taken note of by the Director and the principal/governing Body of the college was directed to give reply to the questionnaire for compliance before 24.01.1994. But no further date was fixed for hearing of the appeal, though the petitioner was expecting that after submission of replies to the questionnaire by the College authority further date of hearing of the appeal would be fixed. It is alleged that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without any hearing, suddenly the appellate authority passed final order on 16.5.1994 (Annexure-12) rejecting the appeal. (e) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the termination order under Annexure-10 and the order passed by opposite party no. 2 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal vide Annexue-12 have been challenged in the present OJC No. 5292 of 1994. (f) It may not be out of place to mention here that OJC No. 5292 of 1994 was dismissed for default on 05.09.1997 and the petitioner having filed MJC No. 524 of 1997 for restoration, the same was allowed on 26.11.2015 subject to payment of some cost and the writ petition was restored to file. (g) While OJC No. 5292 of 1994 was pending, opposite party no. 5 was appointed as Lecturer in Education in the D.R. Nayapalli College on 01.01.1994 in place of the petitioner. (h) It transpires that the petitioner moved the Director (opposite party no. 2) for re-hearing of his appeal which had been dismissed as per order under Annexure-12. On consideration of the same, opposite party no. 2 passed order on 31.3.1998 (Annexure-9 to W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004) holding that the petitioner had been denied opportunity of hearing and that his termination from service was bad since no established procedure was followed and, therefore, opposite party no. 2 directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in his former post with all service benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service. (i) Without challenging the Director’s order dated 31.3.1998, opposite party no. 5 filed OJC No. 15180 of 2001 stating that even after termination of service of the petitioner and dismissal of his appeal and his writ petition for default, he was being illegally permitted to continue in service. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service. (i) Without challenging the Director’s order dated 31.3.1998, opposite party no. 5 filed OJC No. 15180 of 2001 stating that even after termination of service of the petitioner and dismissal of his appeal and his writ petition for default, he was being illegally permitted to continue in service. By order dated 19.2.2002 this Court disposed of the said writ petition direction that in case opposite party no. 5 made a representation to opposite party no. 2, the said authority shall consider the same on its own merits and take steps as permissible under law. Thereafter, opposite party no. 5 filed a representation on 11.3.2002 before opposite party no.2. The representation was enquired into and ultimately the same was rejected on 21.5.2004 by order of the Director (Annexure-5 to W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004). On the same date also vide letter under Annexcure-6, the Director, instructed the principal of the college to submit proposal for sanction of grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner. By letter dated 01.03.2007 (Annexure-10 to W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004) the Government in the Department of Higher Education instructed the Principal of the College to produce records for the purpose of verification of service particulars of the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 5. (j) In the aforesaid scenario opposite party no. 5 has filed W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004 praying to quash the Government Order and letter under Annexure-9 and the consequential orders Annexures-5,6 and 10 of W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004. 4.Learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 during hearing raised the following contentions: (i) The Director-opposite party no. 2 having already rejected petitioner’s appeal by order dated 16.5.1994, he had no power or jurisdiction to review/modify the said order by his subsequent order dated 31.3.1998 and to set aside the petitioner’s termination from service. (ii) The petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts inasmuch as during the pendency of present OJC No. 5292 of 1994 he moved the Director for review of the earlier order, which was under challenge in the said writ petition, without indicating or bringing to the notice of the Director about the pendency of the said writ petition. (iii) For consideration of the representation of opposite party no. (iii) For consideration of the representation of opposite party no. 5 in pursuance of order passed by this Court in OJC No. 15180 of 2001, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director but the representation was illegally rejected by the Director by order dated 21.5.2004 (Annexure-5 to W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004) without making any reference to the enquiry report of the Deputy Director which indicated that originally the petitioner had got ample opportunity to defend his appeal and that the subsequent review was not justified. (iv) Even though in OJC No. 4581 of 1997 this Court quashed the constitution of the Governing Body of the College, it has not specifically quashed the action taken by that Governing Body and, thereof, the appointment of opposite party no. 5 as Lecturer in Education in place of the petitioner by the then Secretary, Sri Bhagyadhar Jagdev of such Governing Body cannot be said to be illegal. (v) Since the original order of termination of service of the petitioner and the appellate order passed by the Director rejecting his appeal are nonest in view of passing of the subsequent review order dated 31.03.1998 by the Director, petitioner’s OJC No. 5292 of 1994 has become infructuous and cannot be taken up for consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the contentions raised on behalf of opposite party no. 5, urged as follows: (i) The order of the Director dated 31.3.1998 is not strictly in exercise of power of review but in exercise of power to recall and such power was exercised since the appellate order had been passed without giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing. Every authority has an inherent power to recall its previous order if it is satisfied that the precious order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and hence no exception can be taken to the subsequent modified order dated 31.03.1998. (ii) Petitioner’s application before the Director was filed when W.P.(C) No. 5292 of 1994 had been dismissed for default and MJC for its restoration was pending. There is no legal bar to move the authority for reconsideration during the pendency of the writ petition or MJC wherein the order of the authority was under challenge. (ii) Petitioner’s application before the Director was filed when W.P.(C) No. 5292 of 1994 had been dismissed for default and MJC for its restoration was pending. There is no legal bar to move the authority for reconsideration during the pendency of the writ petition or MJC wherein the order of the authority was under challenge. (iii) The order of petitioner’s termination from service was passed by Sri Bhagyadhar Jagadev, the then Secretary of the Governing Body, who was not the approved Secretary and had no authority to pass such order of termination and, particularly when the constitution of the Governing Body of which Mr. Jagadev claimed to be the Secretary was quashed by this Court in OJC No. 4581 of 1997 and the batch of other writ petitions by common judgment dated 04.07.2003. (iv) The appointment of opposite party no. 5 in place of petitioner as Lecturer in Education by the Governing Body, whose constitution was quashed, is illegal as it had no competence to give such appointment. That apart, opposite party no. 5 has no locus standi to challenge the modified order passed by the director in favour of the petitioner, since it was a matter between the petitioner and the college management. (v) Since opposite party no. 5 has challenged the modified order of the Director dated 31.3.1998, the petitioner was compelled to restore OJC No. 5292 of 1994. In the event the modified order is interfered with, the original appellate order under Annexure-12 would revive, which would cause hardship to the petitioner and he will not be in a position to challenge the same without his writ petition being heard on merits. (vi) The so called enquiry report of the Deputy Director, as urged by opposite party no. 5, is not based on facts but on surmises. The modified order of the Director clearly reveals that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing in the matter of disposal of the appeal against his termination. 6.In W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004, the State of Orissa and Director, Higher Education, Orissa-opposite party nos. 5, is not based on facts but on surmises. The modified order of the Director clearly reveals that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing in the matter of disposal of the appeal against his termination. 6.In W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004, the State of Orissa and Director, Higher Education, Orissa-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the representation of opposite party No. 5-Radharani Sarangi was disposed of after going through all the college records, written statement and enquiry report of the Regional Director, Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and keeping in view the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is also stated that while disposing of the representation of opposite party no. 5, it was found that Sri Bhagyadhar Jagdev, the then Secretary was not approved by the Director, Higher Education, Orissa on 15.5.1993 and hence the order of termination of the petitioner-Prasanna Ku. Dash issued by Sri Bhagyadhar Jagdev was illegal. Therefore, allowing appeal of Sri Prasanna Kumar Dash, lecturer in Education was justified as his termination had no legal basis. It is also stated that the appointment order of opposite party no. 5 Radharani Sarangi has been issued by Bhagyadhar Jagdev and hence her appointment as lecturer in Education of the college was not valid. Having found that the termination of the petitioner-Prasanna Kumar Dash was not lawfully done by the Governing Body of the college, the Director, Higher Education, Orissa passed order dated 21.5.2004 as per Rule-26 of 1974 Rules to reinstate him in his former post. Therefore, the appointment of opposite party no. 5 was not against the vacant post as the petitioner was continuing as the head of the department of Education in the college and his service had been wrongly terminated by the governing body without following due procedure, not communicating any charges to the petitioner and not giving him any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Director, Higher Education vide his order dated 31.3.1998 reinstated the petitioner in his former post as lecturer in Education (1st post) with all service benefits. The appeal of the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Dash was re-heard by the Director, Higher Education on his representation in order to satisfy the requirement of natural justice. In disposing of the representation of opposite party no. The appeal of the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Dash was re-heard by the Director, Higher Education on his representation in order to satisfy the requirement of natural justice. In disposing of the representation of opposite party no. 5, the Director, Higher Education had taken into consideration all aspects including the enquiry report of the Regional Director, Education, Bhubaneswar. No separate counter affidavit has been filed by the State and the Director, Higher Education in OJC No. 5292 of 1994. 7.The Governing body of D.R. Nayapalli College, Bhubaneswar opposite party no. 3 through its Principal-cum-Secretary-in-charge has filed counter affidavit on 30.03.2016 stating inter alia that the Governing Body filed a counter in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Director, Higher Education and the counter was signed by Bhagyadhar Jagdev, who has described himself as the Secretary of the Governing Body and that as per the counter and the Annexures appended thereto, it is found that the then Governing Body passed resolution terminating the service of the petitioner, who had not challenged the said termination order, but only challenged the order of termination as intimated by the Principal by way of notice. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the documents, which were annexed to the counter of the college in petitioner’s appeal before the Director, Higher Education were only Xerox copies and the original thereof are not available in the college. 8.Opposite party no. 5 has also filed a counter affidavit in OJC No. 5292 of 1994 on 14.04.2016 mostly describing the facts noticed earlier and stating further that the petitioner’s appeal having been dismissed by the Director, Higher Education, she was appointed as lecturer in Education in the college. Referring to the counter filed by the Governing Body before the Director in petitioner’s appeal, it is stated that the petitioner was not eligible and his appointment as lecturer in Education in the college was not valid. 9.As pr the direction of this Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the Government File No. 6C-91/93 relating to the appeal of the petitioner filed before the Director, Higher Education in pursuant to order passed in OJC No. 4592 of 1993. The note sheet of the said file revealed that hearing of the appeal was fixed to 15.09.1993 by the Director. The note sheet of the said file revealed that hearing of the appeal was fixed to 15.09.1993 by the Director. The order of the Additional Director (HE), Orissa of that date reveals that the appellant through his Advocate was present. The respondent-Governing Body filed a time petition for preparation of the case and accordingly the hearing of the appeal was deferred to 05.10.1993. Hearing of the appeal on 05.10.1993 was not taken up and the next date of haring was fixed to 06.11.1993. The note-sheet at page-5 of the file reveals that on 06.11.1993 the appeal was heard in part and the next date of hearing was fixed to 27.11.1993. As per note sheet at page-7 hearing could not be taken up on 27.11.1993 and it was fixed to 04.12.1993. The note-sheet at page-8 of the filed reveals that on 04.12.1993 the counsel for the Governing Body stated that he has submitted a counter on 06.11.1993 and , therefore the date of hearing was re-fixed to 07.11.1994 at 3.30 P.M., on which date an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner (appellant). The Governing Body of the College on that day was given a questionnaire for compliance, but no further date of haring was fixed. On 24.01.1994 the file was endorsed for fixing a date of hearing, but no further date was fixed. On 27.01.1994, it is noted that reply to the questionnaire had been receive from the Principal of the College on that date, which was ordered to be examined and put up point wise. Thereafter, no hearing date was fixed and the note-sheet dated 06.05.1994 reveals that the judgment had been placed in the file and necessary follow up action should be taken. It is thus, apparent from the aforesaid chronology of events that the appeal of the petitioner was not finally heard and no further date of hearing was fixed, but ultimately the impugned order of dismissal of the appeal dated 16.5.01994 (Annexure-12) was passed. It is therefore, manifest that no adequate opportunity of hearing of the appeal was given to the petitioner before rejection of the appeal and therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice. 10.It is very strenuously urged by the learned counsel for opposite party no. It is therefore, manifest that no adequate opportunity of hearing of the appeal was given to the petitioner before rejection of the appeal and therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice. 10.It is very strenuously urged by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 that the Director, Higher Education had no power of review and, therefore, the review order dated 31.3.1998 allowing the petitioner’s appeal is bad and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the order dated 31.3.1998 was not in exercise of power of review, but the director having found that the appellate order was in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch the petitioner had not been granted opportunity of hearing, he recalled the said order and considered the appeal afresh and passed the order dated 31.3.1998 by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of termination of the petitioner. 11.Power of review is a creature of statute and unless the statute confers such power, no Court, Tribunal or other authority can review its own order. However, under certain circumstances an order can be recalled by the authority which may not strictly amount to review, even though no specific power for recall is provided for. Such limited power to recall is inherent in every Court or Tribunal or Authority. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case reported in 88 (1999) C.L.T. 673 (SC): Budhia Swain and others v. Gopinath Deb and other have held as follows: “8. In our opinion a Tribunal or a Court may recall an order earlier made by it if (i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, (ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, (iii) there has been a mistake of the Court prejudicing a party or (iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented. The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppels or acquiescence.” The ground nos. (iii) and (iv), which are justified for recall of an order of an authority, as stated by the apex Court in the aforesaid decision, are nothing but grounds inter alia violation of principles of natural justice or where the necessary party has not been given opportunity of hearing in passing the order recalled. 12.In the aforesaid view of the matter, as has been stated above, on the perusal of the Government File it is manifest that the petitioner had not been granted adequate opportunity of hearing of the appeal in passing the first appellate order by the Director and, therefore, the Director recalled the said order by its order dated 31.3.1998, which cannot be said to be strictly an order of review. 13.As to the question that the petitioner, while making application for recall of the appellate order dated 15.05.1994 (Annexure-12) before the Director suppressed the fact that he had filed OJC No. 5292 of 1994 challenging the aforesaid appellate order, it can be stated that by the time the petitioner filed application before the Director for reconsideration of the appeal, OJC No. 5292 of 1994 had been dismissed for default, though a petition for restoration of the writ petition was pending. Besides, there is no bar for requesting an authority to reconsider and recall the previous order passed by the said authority in violation of principles of natural justice, even if such order has been challenged in a higher forum. In the event the authority being satisfied that there was violation of principles of natural justice, exercised the inherent power to recall the said order, the proceeding pending before the higher authority or forum against the original order would only become infructuous. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the subsequent order of the Director dated 31.3.1998 was without jurisdiction, OJC NO. 5292 of 1994 having already been restored, the appellate order 15.05.1994 (Annexure-12) would be still open to challenge. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the subsequent order of the Director dated 31.3.1998 was without jurisdiction, OJC NO. 5292 of 1994 having already been restored, the appellate order 15.05.1994 (Annexure-12) would be still open to challenge. 14.From the materials on record including the stand taken by the Government and Director in their counter affidavit filed in W.P. (C) No. 6066 of 2004, it is amply clear that though letters were served initially on the petitioner vide Annexures-4 to 6 and he was asked to explain certain allegations levelled against him and he submitted his explanation vide Annexure-7, no proceeding was initiated or charges were framed against him in respect of any allegation by the Governing Body and no opportunity of hearing at all was given to him before termination him from service. This has been taken note of by the Director, Higher Education in the subsequent order dated 31.3.1998. It has been held by this Court in the case reported in 2015 (I) ILR-CUT-1150: Jayanta Kumar Goswami v. Governing Body of Akhandalamani College (+2) & Ors. that non-framing of definite charges and not obtaining prior approval of the competent authority with regard to termination of service of the petitioner, who is a lecturer, vitiates the order of termination of service. It transpires that Sri Bhagyadhar Jagdev, the then Secretary of the Governing Body passed the order of the termination of the petitioner’s service, which was subsequently notified on the notice board of the college by the Principal. It is an admitted position that the said Bhagyadhar Jagdev was not the approved Secretary of the College and, therefore, he had no competence to pass the order of termination of petitioner’s service. The Governing Body, which is not approved is not competent to take a decision for termination of service of an employee. 15.Learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 submitted that the enquiry report of the Deputy Director dated 18.11.2003 reveals that the petitioner had not been denied natural justice, as revealed from the records, and that the petitioner had gained over the Deputy Director, +2, Sri Dhurba Naik through whom he manipulated and tampered the files and papers in the office of the Director, Higher Education and the Ex-Director of the Higher Education had shown undue favour to the petitioner by passing the order dated 31.3.1998. The aforesaid observations of the Deputy Director in his enquiry report are based on no material. As has been seen from the Government File, the petitioner had not been granted opportunity of hearing in the appeal. There is also no basis to allege that the petitioner manipulated and tampered the Government File, inasmuch as no such tampered and manipulated documents have been produced. 16.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the petitioner’s termination from service was bad and illegal and that has been rightly set aside by the Director, Higher Education by his order dated 31.3.1998 on reconsideration by recalling the first appellate order dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure-12). Even otherwise also this Court holds that the appellate order dated 16.05.1994 was violative of natural justice and illegal. 17.Admittedly, the petitioner is continuing in service by virtue of order of the Director dated 31.3.1998, his termination order having been set aside, and by interim order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 6180 of 2004 in W.P.(C) No. 6066 of 2004 this Court directed for payment of current salary to the petitioner and in case grant-in-aid is allowed in his favour, he shall not paid the arrear salary during pendency of the writ petition. Since this Court upholds the second order of the Director dated 31.3.1998, the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits. 18.Opposite party no. 5 was appointed on 01.11.1994 after termination of service of the petitioner against the post he was earlier holding. The petitioner’s termination from service being set aside, opposite party no. 5 cannot be held entitled to hold petitioner’s post. She had however no role to play in petitioner’s post. She had however no role to play in petitioner’s termination, nor can she be blamed for her appointment. It is stated by the parties that the 2nd post of Lecturer in Education in D.R. Nayapalli College, Bhubaneswar has been sanctioned in the meantime and that opposite party no. 5 is still continuing as a lecturer in Education in the said college. For the fault of the Governing Body or the authorities, opposite party no. 5 cannot be penalize and kicked out from the college after twenty two years of service. 5 is still continuing as a lecturer in Education in the said college. For the fault of the Governing Body or the authorities, opposite party no. 5 cannot be penalize and kicked out from the college after twenty two years of service. Therefore, this Court directs that if she is eligible and qualified for the second post of lecturer in Education of the college, she shall be approved against that post from the date it is admissible. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The Government Files be returned to the learned Additional Government Advocate, who had produced the same before this Court. Petitions disposed of.