AJAI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner contends that the institution in question is an Intermediate College under the grant-in-aid list. One post of Assistant Teacher fall vacant due to the promotion of one Sri Ram Murat Singh and presently two posts of Lecturers and three posts of L.T. Grade are vacant in the institution. The total strength of the teaching staff is thirteen.

(2.) The intimation of the vacancies has already been sent to the respondents. No selection or appointment has been made as against the said vacancies for a fairly long time. The petitioner Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the posts on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner claims to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against a short term vacancy which had fallen vacant. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a direction that an approval be granted to the said appointment of the petitioner and for release of salary.

(3.) Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent contends that such appointments are not contemplated and the rules do not permit any short term appointment or even against substantive vacancies after the promulgation of the amended provisions of the 1982 Act. He further submits that the removal of difficulties order that existed came to be rescinded way back in March, 1989 whereafter such appointments are unacceptable. Any appointment contrary thereto is void.