RAM SHANKER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gandhi Adarsh Vidyalaya Inter College, Barhni, District Siddharthanagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution') is a duly recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The institution is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1991 is applicable to this institution. In this institution one Rama Shanker Mishra was promoted on account of resultant vacancy occurred on which the appellant was appointed under the provisions as contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The appointment of the appellant was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddhartha Nagar by communication dated 31st March, 1995 and since then the appellant was regularly performing and discharging his duties and was paid his salary under the Act. However, the Manager of the institution, thereafter, passed an order of termination of the appellant on 31st May, 2002 which was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddhartha Nagar. It is an admitted position that in the institution Rama Shanker Mishra, who was an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade was promoted as a lecturer in History on 9th July, 1990. The Committee of Management, thereafter, appointed the appellant against the resultant short term vacancy after a period of four years and by means of the communication dated 31st March, 1995, the District Inspector of Schools intimated the Manager that approval was accorded to the appointment of the appellant on the condition that it would be ad-hoc and purely temporary, in nature, and that the ad-hoc appointment would automatically come to an end if Rama Shanker Mishra was reverted to his substantive post or a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joined the service whichever was earlier.

(2.) Upon regularization of the services of Rama Shanker Mishra as Lecturer, the vacancy in L.T. Grade became substantive, in nature. According to Clause 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981, the duration of the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant ceased since the short term vacancy came to an end. That is why the Committee of Management issued a letter dated 31st May, 2002 to the appellant intimating him that since the services of Rama Shankar Misra had been regularized, the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant automatically came to an end. It is this letter of the Committee of Management of the institution intimating that his ad-hoc appointment was going to cease against which the writ petitioner-appellant filed a writ application being Writ Petition No. 50510 of 2002 for quashing the order dated 31st May, 2002 seeking a further direction to the authorities of the institution to permit the appellant to discharge his duties as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joins. The writ application was dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court holding that once the short term vacancy was converted into a substantive one, the short term appointment of the appellant automatically came to an end. The learned Judge while dismissing the writ application on this ground relied on a decision of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh Chauhan v. Joint Director of Education and Ors., (2001) 1 UPLBEC 407.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, it was urged that the appellant was entitled to the benefit as provided under Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Commission and Selection Board) Act, 1982 for regularization of the appointment of the appellant. It is difficult to accept this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Section 33-F of the Act provides that a teacher must have been appointed by promotion in the Lecturers Grade on or after 14th May. 1991 but not later than 6th August, 1993 against the short term vacancy in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. In the present case, the fact is that the appellant was admittedly appointed on 13th March, 1995 and, therefore, Section 33-F of the Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. It was next argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to continue irrespective of the fact that the short term vacancy had come to an end till regularly selected candidate from the Commission joined the post. This contention is no longer available to the appellant as in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1329, a Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 16 has held that there was no provision which directly or even indirectly vests a right on a person appointed as an ad-hoc teacher in short term vacancy to continue even after the said vacancy has ceased to exist and a substantive vacancy has been created in its place. The Full Bench also, in the aforesaid decision, did not accept the contention that such an appointee in a short term vacancy was entitled to continue against the substantive vacancy till the joining of a candidate selected by the Commission.