ANOOP KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The facts of the case as revealed in the petition are that there is on School-S. A. V. Inter College, Bharthana District Etawah which is governed by the provisions of the U. P. High Schools and intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.

(2.) ONE Sri Rajveer Singh working in L. T. Grade was given an ad hoc promotion in Lecturer Grade and the petitioner was appointed in C. T. Grade on short term vacancy, vide appointment letter dated 16-11- 1994, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The appointment of the petitioner has duly been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah-Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 15-11-1994 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Sri Rajveer Singh who was having the lien on the post in C. T. Grade retired on 30-6-1996 and, thus, the short term vacan cy was converted into substantive vacancy.

(3.) IN Km. Meena Singh v. D. I. O. S. and others, 1992 AWC 1739, this Court has held as under; "in my opinion, therefore, a teacher duly appointed against short term vacancy under para 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, would be entitled to continue even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive one by reason of resignation, retirement, death or otherwise till such time as a candidate selected for regular appointment turns up to join the post held by ad hoc appointee unless his services are terminated earlier on grounds con nected with misconduct, unsuitability or bonaf. de abolition of post. . . . . . The fact that the appointment against short term vacancy is also required to be made on the basis of quality point marks as is done in the case of recruitment against substantive vacancy, is indicative of the fact that there is no qualitative difference in the methods of appoint ment under the aforesaid provision. It is true that in case of appointment against a short term vacancy the management intimates the vacancy to the District INspector of Schools and notifies the same on the notice board while in the case of appointment against substantive vacancy the District INspector of Schools after receiving in formation from the management invites applications himself from the Local Employment Exchange and also through the public advertise ment in at least two newspaper having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. This would certain ly attract more candidates for choice of a suitable candidate. But once the appointment against short, term vacancy is approved by the District INspector of Schools it may not have been intended by the Legislature that such ad hoc appointee would be replaced by another ad hoc appointee merely because the nature of the vacancy has changed. If this procedure is al lowed to be followed it may lead to exploitation of ad hoc appointee and corruption at the relevant levels as discussed herein before". While deciding the said case, this Court had relied upon its earlier decisions in Writ Petition No. 1524 of 1989, Sri Chandra Bhan Singh v. District INspector of Schools, decided on 4-12-1991 and Writ Petition No. 19914 of 1991, Chandra Kant Pandey v. District INspector of Schools, decided on 9-9-1991.