MUMTAX AHMAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this Special Appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge is : Whether a post falling within 50% promotion quota as visualised by Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (in short 'the Act') would automatically lapse and be deemed to have been surrendered under Regulation 20 of Chapter II if no eligible and qualified candidate is available for promotion and the Committee of Management ultimately decides, after ninety days of the occurrence of vacancy, to fill up the post by direct recruitment?

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated briefly as thus : Majidla Islamia Inter College, Allahabad, is a minority Institution. Appointment of teachers in the institution is governed by the provision of Section 16FF of the Act. A vacancy in the post of Lecturer Commerce occurred in the institution on 30.6.1990 on retirement of permanent incumbent Mohd. Ahmad. The post was covered by 50% quota reserved for being filled in by promotion as visualised by Regulation, 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 7.10.1990 for promotion of Salam Ullah, a permanent Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade to the post of Lecturer in commerce and sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools declined to grant approval on the ground that Salam Ullah did not have the requisite experience of five years teaching as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade on the relevant date. i.e.. 30.6-1990. Thereupon the Committee of Management passed another resolution dated 27.6.1993 cancelling its earlier resolution dated 7.10.1990 by which it had granted promotion to Salam Ullah and subsequently on 8.8.1993, the Committee of. Management decided to fill the vacancy by direct recruitment. The vacancy was then advertised. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. Papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. Appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.8.1993. The petitioner Joined his duties on 28.10.1993 and has been functioning in the institution ever since then. The District Inspector of Schools. however, passed an order dated 16.9.1993 disapproving the appointment of the petitioner on grounds : firstly, that the Committee of Management had already sent a proposal for promotion of Salam Ullah on the said post and the said proposal was still pending ; and secondly, the post would be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the regulations made under the Act and, therefore, could not be filled in sans a fresh order of creation by the Director. On the matter being taken to the Deputy Director of Education in appeal, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools came to be affirmed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 6.4.1994.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education would indicate that the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Education is just a mechanical reproduction of the reasoning given by the District Inspector of Schools. The appeal under Section 16FF (5) is not an empty formality. The Deputy Director of Education ought to have addressed himself to relevant issues while deciding the appeal. There is no denial that resolution dated 7.10.1990 granting promotion to Salam Ullah was cancelled by a subsequent resolution dated 27.6.1993 in view of the objections raised by the District Inspector of Schools that Salam Ullah did not have the requisite teaching experience of five years as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade on the date of occurrence of vacancy. But the authorities have failed to notice this aspect of the matter. The first reason given by the concerned authorities rejecting the proposal of appointment of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted.