SANTOSH MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on a short-term vacancy. The papers were forwarded to the D.I.O.S. on 18.12.1997. The approval was refused on 17.1.1998 on the ground that there was ban on all kinds of appointment by the State Government, which was quashed by the High Court. In view of provision of para 2 of the Removal of Difficulties IInd Order, 1981 if D.I.O.S. fails to communicate the order regarding approval then it will be deemed that the approval have been given hence the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary from the date of appointment i.e. 18.12.1997.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that in view of the fact, it is clear that earlier no prior approval was obtained. However, subsequently the matter was considered and approval was refused on 17.1.1998. The High Court quashed the order of refusal passed by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 9.3.2006 and from that date the petitioner is entitled for salary. The impugned order has rightly been passed hence no interference is required. He further submitted that after short-term vacancy converted into substantive vacancy the short-term vacancy ceased to exist in view of the full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, 1997 2 UPLBEC 1329 and the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service from that date.