KHEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, claiming appointment against a short term vacancy, the details whereof would be evident from the facts narrated hereinafter, has questioned the validity of the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) on the ground that the same is erroneous as it has proceeded on incorrect assumptions of law and is otherwise perverse on questions of fact.

(2.) The Petitioner claims appointment against a post, which fell vacant on account of the ad hoc promotion of one Sri Haqim Singh, a Teacher of CT grade, to a post of LT grade. Sri Haqim Singh was appointed in the CT grade on ad hoc basis on 4.1.1989 and was given the ' nefit of regularization under Section 33-A on 7.8.199.3. Sri Haqim Singh, therefore, was a Teacher in the CT grade in substantive capacity in the institution which fact is also admitted to the District Inspector of Schools in his counter-affidavit. Sri Haqim Singh was promoted on ad hoc basis in LT grade on 4.1.1994 which ad hoc promotion was approved by the. District Inspector of Schools on 10.7.1996. The resultant vacancy, on which Sri Haqim Singh was continuing on substantive basis, came into existence as a short-term vacancy. The Management advertised the said post on 14.7.1996 and a copy of the advertisement has been appended as Annexures-3 & 4 respectively which was published in Hindi daily "Dainil jagran" and another Hindi daily "Sainik". The Management has stated before the District Inspector of Schools, as is evident from a perusal of the impugned order, that the aforesaid advertisement was made after the vacancy had been intimated to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools, while passing the impugned order, has nowhere recorded that the Committee lad not intimated the vacancy even though a statement to that effect, has been made in the counter-affidavit. The Committee of Management is stated to have held the selections by way of Interview on 25.7.1996 on which date 15 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and according to the version of the Management, as disclosed in the impugned order itself, the comparative merits of all the candidates was judged and the quality point marks were awarded as is evident from the tabulation chart appended as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was selected and thereafter he joined on 1.8.1996 where after the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of School for grant of financial sanction and approval.

(3.) The District Inspector of Schools, thereafter, passed an order on 25.9.1996 refusing to grant approval to the petitioner on the ground pat there was a Government Order dated 9.7.1995 imposing a ban on making appointments in such privately aided institutions.