Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Satya Prakash Vivekanand Inter College, Musahari District Deoria is an institution recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Act, 1921(for short, `the 1921 Act') as also by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries & Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, `the 1971 Act').

3. One B.G. Mishra was a teacher working in the said school in CT grade. As he left the institution, a vacancy arose on 15.10.1985. The Management of the college gave intimation of the said vacancy to District Inspector of Schools on or about 19.10.1986 requesting the said authority to forward the name of an eligible teacher for occupying the vacant post. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the name of respondent No.3, Ali Hussain Ansari, was recommended. However, the Management Committee did not find him suitable therefor.

4. Management Committee, ignoring the said recommendations made by the District Inspector of Schools issued advertisement on or about 8.7.2987. Names were called for from the Employment Exchange. From amongst the candidates whose names were sent by the Employment Exchange, the appellant was selected by the Managment Committee on 10.9.1987. The School Authorities, however, refused to grant approval to his appointment and by an order dated 10.12.1987 insisted on the Management to accept joining of respondent No.3. Despite the same, the respondent No.2 was not given any offer of appointment, inter alia, on the premise that he was not suitable for holding the post of Assistant Teacher. Indisputably, recommendation of the name of the appellant for his appointment was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 24.4.1988. Appellant, however, continued to work in the school as an ad hoc employee.

5. Questioning, inter alia, the legality of the said order dated 24.4.1988, the appellant filed a writ application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was marked as Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.14530 of 1988. By reason of an order dated 23.4.2004, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, inter alia, holding:

"This apart, even if the Committee of Management thought that the name of respondent No.3 had been recommended by taking recourse to a procedure contrary to the provisions of the first Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 then too it could have either challenged the said recommendation before this Court or it could have pointed out the alleged defects to the District Inspector of Schools, who upon being satisfied, could have initiated fresh steps. What is disturbing is that the Committee of Management in the present case completely ignored the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools for issuance of an appointment letter in favour of respondent No.3 and proceeded on its own, as if it had the power to do so, under the First Remopval of Difficulties Order, 1981. I am clearly of the view that the Committee of Management did not have the authority to make selection and appoint the petitioner. Further a person who himself was not appointed in accordance with law cannot challenge the appointment of a person on the ground that his name was recommended without following the procedure prescribed. Thus, also it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the communication dated 8.6.1987 sent by the District Inspector of Schools."

An intra court appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the Committee of Management was entitled to make selection and appointment of teachers whenever ad hoc appointment is to be made due to non-availability of a candidate selected by the Commission in terms of the provisions of Section 18(2)