SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Petitioner in the instant case was appointed Lecturer in Kishan National Inter College, Muradnagar Ghaizabad, vide letter 9-10-1990, issued under the signature of the Manager of the college. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following reliefs : (a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21-2-1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 18 ). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to pay the salary to the petitioner as Lecturers grade, Kisan National Inter College Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad w. e. f. 9-10-1990 and continue to pay him his salary regularly as and when it falls due. (c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to accord approval to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner in Lecturer grade math's in Kishan National Inter College Muradnagar district Ghaziabad.

(2.) BY means of the order dated 21-2-1994, subject-matter of impingement in the instant petition, the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad refused to give his imprimatur to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of salary under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.

(3.) I have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nanhe Lal appearing for the Management and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Authorities. Section 18 of the U. P. Act 5 of 1982, as it stood at the relevant time, invested the Manage ment with the power to make ad hoc appointment upon fulfilment of pre requisite conditions specified therein, namely, that the Management had notified the vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and, (a) the Commission had failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher within one year from the date of notification ; or (b) the post of such teacher had actually remained vacant for more than two months. The Management could make ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act either by direct recruitment or by promotion from amongst the persons equipped with qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that recourse to direct recruitment could be taken by the Management only if a suitable and qualified person was not available for promotion. The present case is not one of promotion. The petitioner claims to have been appointed by the Management directly under Section 18 of the Act which by itself does not expressly lay down the procedure to be followed in the case of direct recruitment on ad hoc basis unlike the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which prescribed procedure to be followed both for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. The question as to what procedure was attracted for application in the case of direct recruitment on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy, surfaced up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada's case (supra ). It was ruled by the Full Bench while dealing with the question of ad hoc appoint ment of teachers by direct recruitment that Section 18 as well as the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, operate in one and the same field and are part of one integrated scheme pertaining to recruitment of ad hoc teachers, who are urgently required in the Institutions. The Full Bench has clearly ruled that ad hoc appointment of teacher either under 'section 18 of the Act or under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order has to be done in the manner laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 or the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order, 1931 and further that the provisions may be two but the power to appoint is the one and the same and therefore, the provisions contained in Section 18 and those of the Removal of Difficulties Order are to be harmonised. V. N. Khare, J. (as he then was), seeking for himself and Asthana, J. further ruled that if contingncy arises for ad hoc appointment of teachers by direct recruitment, the procedure provided under the Removal of Difficulties Order aforestated, has to be followed.