PRABHA PATHAK Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SECONDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case the impugned order dated 2nd February, 1996 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition has since been challenged. Ms. Anu Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Impugned order has been passed thoroughly on misconception of the provisions of law. According to her, there cannot be any reservation in respect of ad hoc appointment. That apart even from the record, it appears that number of appointment from reserve quota is already in excess in the said school. On facts the vacancy did not fall within the reserve quota. She secondly contends that the appointment has been made under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982. Therefore, it would not attract the mischief of the U. P. Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and quashed.

(2.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contended that it Is for the District Inspector of Schools to determine the number of vacancies, including the number of vacancies in reserve quota. The District Inspector of Schools having determined the same on the basis of his record, the dispute raised cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction since he is capable of determining the disputed questions of fact. He then contends that there could not be any power under Section 18 of the Act without resorting to the provisions of the First Removal of Difficulties Order in respect of an ad hoc appointment against a substantive vacancy.

(3.) Mr. Anu Jaiswal in reply contended that the appointment was made on 13th June. 1993. It was made under Section 18 of the 1982 Act. The contention of Mr. K. R. Slngh, according to her. Is misconceived. Inasmuch the provisions of law as enunciated in the case of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management. Vidywati Darbari Girls Intermediate College. 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, could be applied only prospectlvety and not retrospectively. Since the petitioner was appointed before the decision In the case of Radha Raizada (supra), therefore, the ratio decided therein cannot be applied. In the said decision, this Court had held that under Section 18, the Committee of Management had a right to appoint.