SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Siddharth Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.

(2.) UPON the retirement of the Principal of the institution, a senior most teacher was promoted to the post of Principal on adhoc basis, which resulted in a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Committee of Management resolved to fill up the short-term vacancy and based on this resolution, the vacancy was advertised in the newspaper inviting applications from eligible candi-dates. The petitioner applied and appeared before the Selection Committee.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents, it has been urged that the va-cancy that was advertised in the newspaper indicated substantive vacancy, whereas a short-term vacancy ought to have been advertised, and therefore, on this ground, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. It was also stated that the papers wereforwarded to the Committee of Management on 26. 10. 1997 and that without waiting for the approval from the District INspector of Schools, the appointment letter was issued in violationof theclause3of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981.