DURG PAL SINGH Vs. D I O S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shrimad Brahmanand Intermediate College, Aligarh is a recognized and aided Intermediate College (hereinafter referred to as the "institution"). The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, and those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers of the institution.

(2.) From the records of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that a substantive vacancy was caused in the institution on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) due to retirement of one Bhudeo Prasad on 30th June, 1989. The Committee of Management is stated to have forwarded the requisition to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") on 22nd August, 1990. The Committee of Management is stated to have offered appointment after notifying the vacancy on the notice board of the institution on 6th July, 1991. The petitioner was appointed on 14th July, 1991. On 15th July, 1991, papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval to the said ad hoc appointment. Since no ion was taken, petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus initially for payment of salary. During the pendency of the present writ petition, District Inspector of Schools passed an order disapproving the alleged ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Hindi). The order so passed has been challenged by the petitioner by means of amendment application which has already been allowed vide order dated 7th April, 2000.

(3.) The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools of disapproval dated 29/31st August, 1992 records various reasons for the purpose. Amongst others, it has been recorded that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner has been made before expiry of two months of the date of notification of the vacancy and therefore, section 18 of the Act, 1982 was not attracted. Further the vacancy was within the quota for promotion, yet direct recruitment has been resorted and therefore, is violation of the provisions of section 16 of Act, 1982. The writ petition suffers from concealment of material facts. Lastly, it has been recorded that in the institution, there were only 13 posts of L.T. Grade, while 14 teachers are already working in L.T. Grade in the institution, thus, appointment was in excess of sanctioned strength.