VIJAI PAL SINGH Vs. D I O S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Asthana for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to accord financial approval to the appointment of the? petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade in Janta Uchattar Madhyamaik Vidyalaya, Mukhurpuri, Bijnor.?

(3.) IT has been stated that on upgradation of the school to the standard of high school, various new posts were created by the Director of Education by letter dated 30.7.1989, in which, one post of LT Grade and two posts of CT Grade Teachers were also created. The Management notified the vacancies to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad for appointment on the aforesaid posts, but the selected candidate was not forwarded for appointment. As such, the Management notified the vacancies and appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on ad hoc basis by order dated 16.12.1992. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined his duty in the college on 22.12.1992. The papers relating to appointment of the petitioner, have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by the Manager through letter dated 4.12.1992, but the financial approval has not been granted to the appointment of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal, Rajkiya Adarsh Janta Uchattar Madhyamaik Vidyalaya, Shahpur, Zamal, Bijnor, it has been stated that the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 was amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 21 of 1992 (later on U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992), by which, Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 was amended and under this Section, the Management was authorized to appoint even on ad hoc basis from the candidates who were selected by the Regional Level Committee. The Management was not competent to make any selection, even for ad hoc appointments. As the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act (which was at the time in force), as such, no financial approval can be granted to the petitioner. Section 18 of the Act (as amended by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992) is quoted below: -