Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Narain, J.
SHRI NIWAS SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 3646 Of 1996
Decided On : 10/21/1997
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - SHORT TERM VACANCY - PROCEDURE - U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES ORDER) (SECOND), 1981 - INTERPRETATION - COURT HELD THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFYING THE SHORT TERM VACANCY SHOULD BE THE SAME AS IT IS FOR THE AD HOC APPOINTMENT BY DISTRICT RECRUITMENT, UNDER THE FIRST REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES ORDER, VIZ. TO ADVERTISE THE SHORT TERM VACANCY ATLEAST IN TWO NEWSPAPERS HAVING ADEQUATE CIRCULATION IN UTTAR PRADESH IN ADDITION TO NOTIFYING THE VACANCY ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE INSTITUTION AND ALSO THE APPLICATIONS BE INVITED FROM THE LOCAL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade in a school on a short-term vacancy caused due to the ad hoc promotion of another teacher. The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord financial sanction for the appointment on the grounds that permission was not obtained prior to the appointment, the vacancy was not published in two daily newspapers, and a Backward Class candidate did not get an opportunity to apply.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the procedure for making ad hoc appointments on short-term vacancies is given in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties Order) (Second), 1981, and it does not require permission from the District Inspector of Schools prior to making the appointment. The court also held that the advertisement for the vacancy was published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the state and that the names were also asked from the Employment Exchange. The court further held that the decision of the Full Bench in Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter college and Ors., (1994) 3 U. P. L. B. E. C. 1551, which held that the procedure for notifying the short-term vacancy should be the same as for the ad hoc appointment by District recruitment, is prospective in nature and does not invalidate any selection which is otherwise valid under law.
Issues: 1. Whether permission from the District Inspector of Schools is required prior to making an appointment on a short-term vacancy? 2. Whether the vacancy was published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the state? 3. Whether a Backward Class candidate was prevented from applying for the post?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the procedure for making ad hoc appointments on short-term vacancies is given in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties Order) (Second), 1981, and it does not require permission from the District Inspector of Schools prior to making the appointment. 2. The court held that the advertisement for the vacancy was published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the state and that the names were also asked from the Employment Exchange. 3. The court held that it has not been shown that any Backward Class candidate had applied for appointment to the post or was prevented from applying for the post.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to accord financial sanction for the appointment of the petitioner. The court directed the District Inspector of Schools to pay the salary to the petitioner in accordance with law within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19th December, 1995, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, respondent No. 1, refusing to accord financial sanction of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade in shri Gandhi Inter College, Dhotari, district Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution ).
( 2 ) THE version of the petitioner is that Shri Satyendradeo Singh was permanent Principal of the institution. He retired on 30th June, 1991. On his retirement one Sri Daya Shankar Singh, the seniormost lecturer was promoted as ad hoc Principal by the Committee of Management. On account of promotion of Sri Daya Shanker Singh a vacancy arose in the Institution on the post of lecturer. Sri Digvijay Singh was promoted to the post of Lecturer from the post of L. T. grade teacher. On his promotion the vacancy to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade fell vacant. As the promotion order had not been confirmed, there was a short term vacancy.
( 3 ) IT is alleged that the permission was obtained from the District Inspector of Schools for advertising the post for appointment to the post of L. T. grade teacher on short term vacancy and the District Inspector of Schools granted the permission, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Committee of Management advertised the post in daily newspaper on 15th June, 1993. On the basis of the advertisement only two candidates applied. The Committee of Management decided to re advertise the post, in its resolution dated 25th July, 1993 and the Manager by his letter dated 6th September, 1993 requested the Employment exchange to send the names. The post was re-advertised in the newspaper on 7th September, 1993. The petitioner applied for the appointment. The Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on 3rd October, 1993. The petitioner was found most suitable for appointment on the basis of guilty point marks. The Committee of Management accepted the recommendation of the selection Committee and sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval on 13th October, 1993. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order.
( 4 ) THE petitioner was given the appointment letter on 15th November, 1993 and in pursuance of the said appointment letter the petitioner joined the institution.
( 5 ) AS the District Inspector of Schools had not passed any order, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 18120 of 1995 which was disposed of by this Court on 7th July, 1995 with a direction to the district Inspector of Schools to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The representation was alleged to have not been decided. The petitioner filed contempt petition on which the notices were issued. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the representation by the impugned order dated 18. 12. 1995.
( 6 ) I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has refused to accord financial sanction for three reasons. Firstly, the petitioner had not taken permission from the District Inspector of Schools prior to making of the appointment. It is not disputed that the petitioner was being appointed on a short term vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Digvijay Singh on the post of Lecturer from L. T. grade teacher. The procedure for making ad hoc appointment on short terms vacancy has been given in U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties Order) (Second), 1981. The power has been given to the Committee of Management to make short terms appointment on the basis of the procedure prescribed therein. It does not require that any permission of the District Inspector of Schools is to be obtained before any selection for appointment is to be made. Para 2 (3) only provides that the Management shall intimate the vacancy to the District Inspector of S
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
