RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 14th August, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri B. B. Paul submitted that under the provision of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the management has been vested with the power to make an ad hoc appointment and this issue has not been taken away with the enforcement of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. This argument cannot be accepted, as there is categorical provision under the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 that after coming into force of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, no appointment shall be made in a recognised institution except of a person selected and recommended by the Commission constituted under the provision of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Therefore, the argument advanced by Sri Paul is bound to be rejected and is hereby rejected.