JAGAT NARAIN SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J.N. Singh, petitioner in the first writ petition and B.P. Singh petitioner in the second writ petition are rival claimants for one post of teacher in Sri Laxmi Narain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Meja, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college). Director of education by order-dated 22.4.1998 has negatived the claim of both. The Director passed the order on appeal of J.N. Singh, which was filed in pursuance of judgment-dated 11.11.1997 given in special appeal, by this court, which was filed by J.N. Singh. Judgment of the special appeal No. 270 of 1995 is annexure 7 and consequent order of the Director is annexure 8 to the first of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by J.N. Singh.

(2.) In the judgment of the aforesaid special appeal it was directed that the Director of Education shall decide the appeal after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. It was observed that "matter should be considered by the Director of Education who will consider the validity or otherwise of the appointments of the appellant (i.e. J.N. Singh) and respondent No. 3 (i.e. B.P. Singh). It has been argued on behalf of J.N. Singh that an earlier order of D.I.O.S. against B.P. Singh was not challenged hence it became final. His argument is not entertain able as in view of the observations in the judgment of special appeal. The Director was required to decide the entire matter afresh.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that late Sri R.N. Singh, a teacher in L.T. Grade died in harness on 10.4.1985. Committee of Management proposed promotion of Ram Raj Singh, a C.T. Grade teacher and the proposal was sent to D.I.O.S. on 19.10.1985. This proposal/recommendation was accepted/ approved on 16.3.1988 by the U.P. Secondary Education services Commission and in pursuance thereof Ram Raj Singh joined on 25.4.1988. Petitioner R.N. Singh claims to have been appointed on 11.2.1989 on the post of C.T. Grade teacher falling vacant due to promotion of Ram Raj Singh of L.T. Grade. In the writ petition of J.N. Singh it has been stated in para 16 to 19 that Ram Raj Singh was promoted on substantive vacancy under first removal of difficulties order 1981 framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Service commission ordinance/Act). Meaning thereby that the promotion of Ram Raj Singh was ad-hoc and to remain in operation until regularly selected candidate selected by the commission joined. It has further been asserted in the said writ petition that in this manner a short-term vacancy came into existence in C.T. Grade against which petitioner J.N. Singh was appointed on 11.2.1989. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the Director and Deputy Director of education, it has been stated in para 4 that on 16.3.1988 approval of promotion of Ram Raj Singh was granted by the commission, under rule 9 of 1983 rules framed under the Act (as existed at the relevant time). Approval of commission was required only if the promotion was on the post of to be filled by promotion under promotion quota of 40% (as applicable at the relevant time) under chapter 2 Regulation 5 and 6 of the regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that promotion of Ram Raj Singh approved by the commission was substantive and final in nature and not ad-hoc until candidate selected by the commission joined. Consequently the vacancy, which occurred in C.T. Grade due to promotion of Ram Raj Singh under promotion quota and its approval by commission, was the substantive vacancy and not a short-term vacancy. In the rejoinder affidavit of J.N. Singh in para 3 this fact has not been denied that approval-dated 16.3.1988 was granted by the commission. However, it has been stated therein that it was wrongly granted by the commission and it ought to have been granted by the D.I.O.S. By way of elaboration it has been stated that if it had been an appointment under promotion quota names of three persons would have been forwarded. Under chapter 2 Regulations 5 and 6 and rule 9 of 1983 rules framed under the commission Act only those teachers who possess minimum qualification for teaching subject concerned and five years experience shall be considered of promotion. It is quite possible that apart from Ram Raj Singh no other teacher was available for promotion hence no other name was forwarded by the committee of management. In any case approval dated 16.3.1988 granted by the commission was neither challenged in any of the earlier writ petition nor in the instant writ petition, hence its validity can not be questioned by the petitioner J.N. Singh.