DULAR SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on ad hoc basis vide appointment letter dated 16-11- 1992, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order itself States that this appointment is to last until the regular selection by the U. P. Secon dary Education service Commission. In pur suance of this appointment letter, the petitioner claims that he has been working since 18-1-1993. Subsequently it appears that regular selections have been made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Com mission and hence the petitioner's appoint ment automatically came to an end.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has claimed the benefit of Section 33-B of the Act. Section 33-B states as follows: "33-B. Regularisation of certain other ap pointments- (1) Any teacher, other than the Prin cipal or Headmaster, who- (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade on or before May 14, 1991 or in the certificate of Teaching grade on or before May 13, 1989 against a short term vacancy in accord ance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy, or (ii) was appointed by direct recruitment on or after July 14, 1981 but not later than June 12, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade through ad vertisement and such appointment was approved by the Inspector, or (iii) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than May 14, 1991 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, as it stood before its omission by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commis sion and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1922. " In my opinion the petitioner cannot get the benefit of Section 33-B (a) (i) of the Act because he was appointed after 14-5-1991. Sub clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above Section also do not apply to the petitioner as his appointment is not covered by those sub-clauses.