PRABHU DAYAL Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS FIROZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS here claim to have been appointed as ad hoc teacher vide appointment letter dated June 1, 1992 in Arya Janta Inter College, Paigu district Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as the College). Their appointments not having been approved by the District Inspector of Schools (herein after referred to as the D.I.O.S.), they filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14-5-1993 on the ground that the conditions laid down in Clauses (a) or (b) of section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act) not being satisfied, no appointment of the appellants as teacher could have been made. Being aggrieved, the appellant have filed this appeal.

(2.) IT appeals that although vacancies occurred on April 2, 1988, 30th June, 1990 and 12th February 1992 but the notification was sent to the Secondary Education Service Commission by the letter dated April 21, 1992, Adaoc appointment under section is can be made by the managing committee of an institution, if the Commission hat failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher within one year from the date of notification or the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. In the instant case the vacancies were notified by letter dated April 21, 1992, whereas appointment of the appellants was made on June 1, 1992. The period of one year contemplated by Clause (a) of section 18 of the Act, had not expired till the date of appointment. Section 18 (1) (a) will not be applicable to the instant case. But vacancies had occurred on three dates, vie. April 2. 1988, June 30, 1999 and February 12, 1992. As mentioned above, the appointment of the appellants was made on June 1, 1992, which is two months after the vacancies had occurred in the institution and the posts were, as such, lying vacant for more than two months. Presuming two months period referred to under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act is to be counted from the date of notification even then two months' period had passed, because the notification was made by letter dated April 21, 1992. The appointment of (he appellants thus falls under Clause (b) of section 18. After period specified under Clauses (a) or (b) has expired it was open to the management to make appointment at any time. IT was not obligatory on IT to appoint a teacher immediately after the vacancies had occurred. The appointments of the -appellants cannot be declared to be had merely because they were not made immediately after the vacancies had come into existence.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment dated 14-5-1993 of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The case is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.