RAM SHANKER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANDHI Adarsh Vidyalaya Inter College, Barhni, District Siddarthanagar (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 Shankar 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, Siddharthanagar 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 of 31st May, 2002 which was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthanagar. 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 services 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 Shanker Mishra 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 others, (2001) 1 UPLBEC 407.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Verma and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1420, so as to satisfy this Court that the appellant was entitled to be considered for regular appointment. In our view, this decision is not, at all, applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that decision this Court was specifically dealing with the provisions of Section 33 -B of the Act which provides that any teacher appointed between certain dates and on certain conditions, shall be given substantive appointment by the Management of the institution. It is the admitted position in this case that the appellant was appointed against a short term vacancy between the dates mentioned in the section and, accordingly, as noted herein earlier, this decision is of no help to the appellant. Reliance was also placed in Smt. Shashi Saxena and others v. Deputy Director of Education and others, 2000 (3) ESC 1990. In our view, this decision too does not help the appellant since this decision deals with the regularization of appointment either under Section 33 -A or Section 33 -B of the Act which benefit cannot be availed of by the appellant since he did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the said sections.