SHATRUNJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition the facts on which there is no issue are to the effect that in Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhatawali Bazar, District Gorakhpur, a permanent Lecturer in Chemistry died on 22 January, 1992. Thus, there was a substantive vacancy on the post of a Lecturer in Chemistry. At the time when the vacancy had occurred, it may be said, at the outset, that the amendments to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, had not happened . Thus, in accordance with Section 18, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission falling to recommend any suitable candidate within one year did not arise. though the circumstances of a post of a teacher being vacant for more than two months to permit the management to make a direct recruitment on an ad hoc basis, was available. The vacancy was intimated, it is stated in the petition, to the Commission on 9 April, 1992. The appointment, on the basis of a selection made by the Committee of Management on 20 Decembers 1992, was announced on 21 December. 1992. This implies that since the vacancy was intimated on 9 April 1992, the process for the selection of a candidate had not started until December, 1992; a period of eight months intervened. The appointment followed the selection within 24 hours.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the amendment which has been incorporated to Section 18, by the U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1992 (referred to as 'the Amendment Act'), would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the vacancy had occurred prior to the applicability of the Amendment Act. Thus, it is contended, the appointment could be made by the management, without recourse to Section 18 of the Act, as amended.

(3.) SHOULD the appointment have been made before the Amendment Act was effective, it would have been a fact accomplished. But, once the Act stood amended, the very first clause to Section 18 stipulates that the management may appoint but as provided under the section. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited two cases Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao : AIR 1983 SC 852, and Sultan Ahmad v. State of U.P., 1983 AWC 86 (DB). On one aspect, there is a commonness in the cases cited at the Bar. Commonness is to the effect that they relate to conditions of employees already in State or publico service. The cases do not concern those yet to be recruited. in the matter of Y.V. Rangaiah, it was an issue of promotion and drawing up of a select list. The promotion to whom it was due being one of right and could not be denied, thus, any amendment which was incorporated to the service regulations, could not be at the expense of those who were entitle to the promotion and, thus any list which was drawn up, notwithstanding the amendment brought in, was recognised as one which was to be acted upon as valid. in the other case. re; Sultan Ahmad, the law. as it was interpreted, was in reference to the staff of the Collectorate Ministerial Service and was applicable to all the State employees, as a class. A select list for promotion was not made applicable since it was prepared but was pot in abeyance tc be made applicable on the applicability of Roles published in the State Gazette later. The select list was cancelled. The High Court held that this was not justified, as promotion was a matter of right, after doe selection, it became effective when the vacancy arose.