DINGUR Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dent Nos. 1 and 4.

(2.) PERUSED the record.

(3.) ON 20th March, 1997, the petitioner moved an application seeking various amendments in the writ petition asserting that there is no provision under the Inter mediate Education Act or the Regulations framed there under requiring any approval regarding appointment of a person on a post filling in class IV. It was further asserted that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act does not con template that after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval for filling up the vacancy any further approval regarding the appointment was necessary or required. It is also asserted that Section 16-E of the Act provides for recruitment of only teacher and head of institution but there is no provision in the Act authorising the fram ing of any regulations regulating the recruit ment for filling up the post falling in class IV in a college recognised under the provision of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. It was also claimed that the provisions con tained in Section 16-G of the Act only provided for framing of regulations govern ing the service conditions and could not regulate the recruitment of a class III or class IV employee, emphasising that expres sion "recruitment" and conditions of service are not synonimous and could not be treated to be one and the same thing and they convey different meanings. It was as serted that Regulation 101 of the Regula tions contained in Chapter II of the Regula tions framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act deals with recruitment only and could not be taken to be a condition of service and since the Regulation 101 in question had been framed in exercise of the power under Section 16-F of the Act, was beyond the scope and power to frame regulation under Section 16-G of the Act. It was also asserted that the provisions as con tained in Regulation 101 of the aforesaid regulations is inderogation of and in con flict with Regulation 10 of Chapter I of the Regulations and was liable to be ignored. ON the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner claimed in the alternative that the Regula tions 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediates Education Act be quashed.