SURESH PAL Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appointment of Respondent (sic) lecturer is challenged by a writ of certiorari and a writ (sic) directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioner (sic) on ad hoc basis and petitioner No. 2 as lecturer (sic) basis. Petitioners on departmental candidates whereas, (sic) 4 & 5 are said to be direct recruits.

(2.) Petitioners case is that petitioner No. (sic) Assistant teacher in L.T. grade on 6-9-1974. (sic) w.e.f. the same date as L.T. grade teacher. On (sic) as permanent lecturer in Economics is said to have (sic) and due to his retirement a substantive vacancy (sic) Economics came into existence. Petitioner No. 1 was (sic) on the post of lecturer in Economics under (sic) law. Every substantive vacancy has to be tilled up(sic) promotion of a senior teacher working in the lower (sic) lecturer in Economics WAS also to be filled up by (sic) No. I was qualified for being appointed to the post of lecturer in Economics as he was eligible for appointment. Petitioner No. 1 is said to have filed an application on 8-8-1988 that he should be given promotion to the post of lecturer. On 30-8-1988 Petitioner No. 1 was directed to teach intermediate classes in Economics subject and he is said to have complied with this order. On 25-1- 1989 Petitioner No. 1 again represented his case before the management. Management did not consider the said request as management wanted to promote its own favorites for certain oblique reasons.

(3.) On 20-1-1991 Respondent No. 3 who is a direct recruit was appointed as ad hoc lecturer. Petitioner No. 1 challenges the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as being illegal and against the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. On 20-1- 1991 Respondent No. 1 is said to have given approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 further states that neither any advertisement was issued nor was any selection held for appointing Respondent No. 3 as lecturer.