The power to make ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 is derived by the Committee of Management only after the expiry of two months from the occurrence of the vacancy on being notified.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 10842 of 1992 was filed by one Shri Harendra Kumar Singh who contained that a requisition dated 3. 3. 1991, signed by the Manager, being Annexure-1 to the writ petition, was notified to the Commission that one Shri Ram Murthy Pandey, holding the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit would be retiring on 30. 6. 1991, resulting into a substantive vacancy which was required to be filled up. On account of anticipated vacancy an advertisement was issued on 14. 3. 1991, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, inviting candidates for appointment in the said vacancy, for which applications were to be submitted within 23. 7. 1991. It was also pointed out in the said advertisement that the interview alongwith the original certificates would be held on 14. 7. 1991 at 11. 00 a. m. Thus the advertisement itself contradicts in the matter that the last date for submission of applications was fixed on 23. 7. 1991 and the interview was fixed on 14. 7. 1991 viz. , before 9 days of the last date for submitting the applications for the appointment. This raises a suspicion about the genuineness of the said advertisement. The interview cannot precede the last date of submission of the application.

( 2 ) MR. S. K. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has been appointed pursuant to such advertisement 2. 9. 1991 following the procedure laid down in Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (At present its name has been changed and it is now know as U. P. Secondary Education Services selection Board, Act 1982. The words "commission and" of the original Act has been omitted by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, w. e. f. 6. 1. 1993), therefore, his appointment should be approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the refusal of the approval cannot be sustained. On this ground this petition has been moved seeking the relief for payment of salary to the petitioner and quashing of the order dated 29. 1. 1992, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, disapproving the said appointment of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE writ petition No. 29056 of 1993 has been filed by one Shri Dhanurdhar Upadhyaya claiming to have been selected and appointed by the Committee of Management pursuant to an advertisement dated 8. 7. 1991, where it has been pointed that the vacancy, that arose on 30. 6. 1991, on account of retirement of Shri Ram Murthy Pandey, Lecturer in Sanskrit would be filled up, for which applications may be submitted within 29. 7. 1991. for which the interview was fixed on 30. 7. 1991, which was alleged to have been issued by the Manager. The said advertisement /letter is contained in Annexure-2 to the said writ petition. In the said writ petition the requisition dated 3. 3. 1991 is also annexed as Annexure-1 which is the Xerox copy of the original alleged requisition, wherefrom it appears that the said requisition was signed by the principal. On the basis of such advertisement and requisition, the petitioner claims to have been appointed and therefore he has claimed that the petitioner should be paid his salary from 2. 8. 1991 on, account of his appointment on 2. 8. 1991 pursuant to such advertisement and appointment.

( 4 ) IN the writ petition No. 27899 of 1992 one Shri Nagendra Nath Dubey had claimed that he was appointed in the self same vacancy of Shri Ram Murthy Pandey in the post of Lecturer in sanskrit on 15. 8. 1991 pursuant to an advertisement published on 1. 7. 1991 which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said advertisement appears to be a Xerox copy, but it does not bear any signature either of the Manager or of the Principal. In the said writ petition, the requisition has not been annexed. But it has been claimed that the statement of the said vacancy was forwarded in September, 1990 to the District Inspector of Schools, who had forwarded the same to the commission in accordance with law. However, he has not dis