MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. In all the five cases the dispute is as to whe ther the short term vacancy can be filled up by the management as the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the authorities only on the ground that the Director of Education in his circular dated 9-6-1995 has directed the District Inspector of Schools not to grant any approval or financial aid in the cases where the management has filled up the short term vacancies as the U. P. Secondary Education Commission is in existence and functioning, therefore, the question of appointment by the management does not arise.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the said circular dated 9-6-1995 does not cover the case of the petitioners, as the said, which can be filled up by the management under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders passed under the U. P. Secondary Education Commis sion and Selection Board Act (Act No. 5 of 1982 ). Moreover, the Secon dary Education Service Commission has not been vested with the power to make selections to fill up the short term vacancies, which are not to be filled up on substantive vacancies.

(3.) SHRI Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Standing Counsel has, how ever, raised the issue that the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has also laid down the procedure for filling up the vacancies on ad hoc basis which is also applicable for filling up the short term vacancies.