STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. JAI NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CYRIAC Joseph, C. J. This special appeal is filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2001 (S/s ). The appellants are the re spondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ pe tition. The respondent herein is the sec ond petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Science (LT Grade) in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Kathgodam. In the appointment letter, it was specifi cally stated that the appointment was on ad hoc basis and that the appoint ment could be terminated as and when a candidate selected by the Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) joined duty. It was also stated that the salary of the petitioner would be paid from the Parent Teacher Association Fund. THE said appointment of the pe titioner was never approved by any educational authorities. According to the petitioner, since such approval was not necessary, approval was not sought. However, the petitioner contin ued in service. When candidates were selected by the Board for regular ap pointment, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in the year 1996 claiming regularisation of his appointment and obtained an interim order staying the appointment of the candidate selected by the Board. " In view of the stay order, the candidate selected by the Board could not be appointed and the petitioner continued in service.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the Management, but by the Manager and hence it was not in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. According to him, an ad hoc ap pointment under Section 18 of the Act ought to be made by the Management. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge. We are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge. THE word "management" is defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act. According to Section 2 (f), "management in relation to an institution means the committee of management or person or authority vested with the power- to manage and conduct the affairs of that institution". THE person vested with the power to manage and conduct the affairs of an' institution is called the Manager. THEre fore, the expression 'management' in cludes Manager also. As the petitioner was admittedly appointed by the Man ager of the institution, it cannot be said that his appointment was not in accord ance with Section 18. It is also to be noted that the Management, as such, cannot issue any order and that any decision or order of the Management has to be conveyed or issued by some one authorised to do so on behalf of the Management. In this case, the Man agement of the institution has not dis puted the right or competence of the Manager to make the appointment on behalf of the Management. Hence, we do not find any merit in the first con tention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.