SANDHYA TEWARI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Smt. Sandhya Tewari, applied for being considered on the post of a L.T. Grade Teacher at the Arya Putri Infer College, Bareilly. She contends that she was selected but the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, in reference to the approval upon the papers being forwarded, declined to grant her approval. Thus, she seek a mandamus from this Court that a direction be issued on the payment of her salary and a further direction by a writ of mandamus that the respondents should not interfere with her working as a L.T. Grade Teacher in the institution. The occasion for her appointment, she claims, arose when one Santosh Kapoor was promoted as a Lecturer. Santosh Kapoor was promoted as a Lecturer on a substantive vacancy caused on 13th June, 1992, when a Lecturer in Civics retired. On this aspect, there is no issue. This permanent vacancy was filled by Santosh Kapoor who saw a promotion under a 50 percent internal promotion quota, implying thereby that the post which Santosh Kapoor was occupying, became vacant.

(2.) THE issue raised in the writ petition is thus; It is contended that the post which now lies vacant on account of the promotion of Santosh Kapoor, is a 'short term vacancy' within the meaning of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) order, 1981. The expression Short term vacancy' is referred in sub -clause (2) of the Order, aforesaid. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a short term vacancy and, thus, it is not necessary for the management to either have recourse to the U.P. Higher Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, particularly Section 18, or, for that matter, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) order, 1981. Should the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner be correct, then, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, under the law, is obliged to pass an order on the approval sought.

(3.) IT is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vacancies the like of which are to be filled in reference to the First Removal of Difficulties Order, such vacancies do not apply to the circumstances of the present case. To this extent, the Court agrees with learned counsel. The First Removal of Difficulties Order is in reference to the vacancies which are substantive vacancies which occur on the death, retirement, resignation or otherwise, of the person holding the post or vacancies caused where the whole or unexpired portion, of leave is for a period exceeding two months, and/or where the vacancy is of a nature in either of the two eventualities, aforesaid, but comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the commencement of the vacancies.