MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER - appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2004, passed by Learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18659 of 1999 dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952. PETITIONER-appellant filed petition inter alia praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord financial approval to his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and to pay the salary w.e.f. 1st of July, 1997. Mr. Satish Mandhyan appears on behalf of the appellant. The Learned Single Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the appellant's appointment itself was not in accordance with law and accordingly prayer made by him was not fit to be granted. In this connection Learned Single Judge has observed as follows : "It is true that adhoc appointment can be made against the substantive vacancy but the Management cannot appoint a Teacher unless it has sent the requisition to the Commission and Commission has failed to make any appointment within two months. As it is evident from the record that apart from a bald statement in the writ petition that the requisition on was sent, no specific details have been given as to when the requisition was sent and when was it received by the Commission. This bald statement in the petition has been specifically denied in the counter affidavit but in the rejoinder affidavit again no details have been mentioned neither the copy of the relevant documents have been annexed. In my view, since the requisition itself was not sent in accordance with the requirement of law, the Management did not possess any power to make adhoc appointment on a substantive vacancy." We do not find any error in the approach of the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.