ASHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, are that a short-term vacancy arose due to promotion of Smt. Manju Lata Shukla from C. T. to L. T. grade and in that vacancy petitioner was ap pointed vide order dated 27-8-93 in C. T. Grade. In response to the appointment letter petitioner joined on 1-9-93. There after the management sent the relevant papers on 9-9-93 to the Regional Inspectors of Girls' Schools, Lucknow, op posite party No. 2 for approval. On 6-11-93 some queries were made by the R. I. G. S. which later on were removed by the Management vide letter dated 25-11-93. The opposite party No. 2, however, rejected the approval of the petitioner on the grounds firstly, that there was ban on recruitments and secondly, that in view of provisions of Sections 15 (1) and 16 (1) of the Commission's Act the Committee of the Management had no powers to make new appointments.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of apex Court reported in 1997 (1) UPLBEC 199 : 1997 (1) LBESR 961 (SC), Muneshwar Dull Pandey v. Ramjeet Tewari, where their lordships has held that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 198i have permanent operational effect and covers all the future vacancies after 1991. Sri S. P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 16 of the Act applies only to regular ap pointments against the permanent vacan cies and not to the short-term vacancies.