MUKESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri G. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-11-1999 filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 1. By the said order, the approval sought for by the Committee of Management for the appointment of the petitioner on a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (Art) has been refused. It is the contention of the petitioner that a short term vacancy had occurred in the College and after following the procedure prescribed for appointment thereon, the Committee of Management has appointed the petitioner on a short term vacancy. THE occurrence of the said vacancies as alleged by the petitioner has been denied on behalf of the respondent No. 3, who is the Principal of the College, in as much as it has been stated that such a short term vacancy did not exist.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Isha Khan v. D. I. O. S. Kushi Nagar & Ors. , 2003 (Vol. 1) ESC 634. In the aforesaid case, this Court has held that since there was no denial to the fact that procedure prescribed for a short term vacancy has been followed and complied with and the only grounds for refusal was a ban imposed by the State Government, it held that such a ban would not be applicable in the case of short term vacancies because it will adversely affect the studies of students, therefore, it is in the general interest that the same may be filled up at the earliest. In the present case the impugned order indicates that the procedure prescribed for making short term appointment has been followed and the only ground for refusal is a ban imposed by the State Government. Following the decision in the case of Mohd. Isha (supra), it is held that such a ground was not available to the respondent No. 1 for refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on short term vacancy. For this reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside.