RAM NARAIN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of Principal of Mahabir Intermediate College, Malikpura, Ghazipur dated 8.11.1991 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as ad-hoc Lecturer (Civics) in the said institution and to pay him salary accordingly. Facts in short on record are as follows. One Chandrika Rai, who was working as Lecturer (Civics) in Mahabir Intermediate College, applied for medical leave w.e.f. 1.8.1989 for a period of six months. This leave was sanctioned under the order dated 14.12.1989. Against this short term vacancy, the petitioner was appointed for a period of six months w.e.f. 11.8.1989 by the Committee of Management. The said appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools under order dated 14.12.1989. The leave vacancy was extended from time to time and the petitioner also continued to function with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools during these extended period. The last approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools is dated 7.3.1991, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to this petition. Chandrika Rai is stated to have expired on 6.11.1991 accordingly the principal of the institution informed the petitioner that his services would come to an end on 7.11.1991.

(2.) It is against the order dated 7.11.1991, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any illegality in the order of the principal. It is settled law that once a short term vacancy is converted into substantive vacancy, the appointment against short term vacancy comes to an automatic end by operation of law reference Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2007 1 ESC 118 In view of the said Division Bench judgment of this Court, this Court hardly finds no (sic, any?) good ground to interfere with the order of the Principal. The letter of the Principal is only an intimation of the true and correct legal position qua the non-continuance of the petitioner and the consequences which follow.

(3.) Shri P.N. Saxena, Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contended that because of the interim order granted by this Court in the present writ petition, the petitioner has continued in employment and in between section 33-B(1) has been added to the U.P. Secondary Service Selection Board Act, 1982. As per the section 33-B an ad-hoc appointee against short term vacancy appointed prior to 14th May, 1991 have been directed to be regularised if the vacancy stood converted into substantive vacancy on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the said section. It is his case that the petitioner is entitled to such regularisation.