SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 2917

[2009(9) ADJ 650]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.K. GUPTA, J.
JAI PRAKASH SINGH .......Petitioner
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, JAUNPUR AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3502 of 1994, decided on 19th August, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
G.K. Singh for the Petitioner; A.K. Sinha and S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Appointment—Ad hoc appointment—Post of Lecturer in History on short-term vacancy—Vacancy on post of Lecturer in History fell vacant on account of promotion to one teacher to post of Principal—As such, in accordance with Second Removal of Difficulties Order, vacancy was not substantive, but was short-term vacancy and provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order would have been applicable and provision of Section 18 of Act of 1982 had no application, as vacancy of post of Lecturer in History was not substantive—Thus, appointment of petitioner was on short-term vacancy, therefore Committee of Management was fully empowered to appoint petitioner on said short-term vacancy in accordance with clauses (2) and (3) of Second Removal of Difficulties Order—Since appointment of petitioner was not under Section 18 of Act of 1982, Selection Committee as provided under said Ordinance, had no role to play—Therefore, initial appointment of petitioner on ad hoc basis to post of Lecturer in History was on short-term vacancy in accordance with Difficulties Order of 1981—Thus, his initial appointment is held valid—However, when short-term vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy after retirement of a teacher, petitioner ceased to have any right to continue on said post—As such, continuance of petitioner in institution after 30.6.2003 (i.e. from retirement of a teacher), cannot be said to be legal or proper—Even though petitioner had no claim to continue in post of Lecturer, salary or any remuneration paid to him, however may not be recovered from him—Henceforth, petitioner will neither be entitled to continue in post, nor to any salary. [U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981—Clauses (1), (2) and (3)—U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982—Section 18]. [Paras 13 and 23]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—This writ petition had been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs :

"(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 18-10-1993;

(ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly alongwith all arrears on that account”.

2. The brief facts enumerated in the present writ petition are as follows :

3. Panchsheel Inter College Fatehganj, Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as “institution”) is a duly recognized institution and is governed by the provision of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. The post of Principal fell vacant in the institution on 30-6-1993 on account of retirement of one Sri Raj Bahadur Singh.

4. The committee of management (in short “management”) had already notified the vacancy of the post of Principal to the Commission and it therefore promoted one Sri Raj Bahadur Singh, senior most lecturer as Principal on ad hoc basis. On account of ad hoc promotion of Sri Raj Bahadur Singh to the post of Principal, the post earlier occupied by him i.e. the post of lecturer in History fell vacant. The Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the post of lecturer on ad hoc basis under the provisions laid down under U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (IInd Removal of Difficulties Order) 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Second Removal of Difficulties Order).

5. The Committee of Management thereafter informed the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (in short “DIOS”) about the aforesaid vacancy and also advertised the post in question. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement several candidates including the petitioner applied and were called for interview, which took place on 5-9-1993. A merit list was prepared on the basis of quality point marks and the petitioner was found to be the best candidate amongst all the applicants. The committee of management thereafter passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner on 8-9-1993 and thereafter sent the papers regarding selection of the petitioner to the DIOS on 29-9-1993. The papers were duly received in the office of DIOS Jaunpur on the same day i.e. 29-9-1993. The DIOS however, did not pass any order in the matter as required under the provisions laid down in Second Removal of Difficulties Order.

6. After waiting for a period of more than one week, the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on 10-10-1993. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined duties on 11-10-1993 . The DIOS, Jaunpur however on 18-10-1993 passed an order rejecting the proposal submitted by the management regarding appointment of the petitioner on the post in question on the ground that the management has no power to make appointments on the post in question in view of the Ordinance dated 14-7-1992, wherein only the selection committee as provided therein has been empowered to make appointment. Therefore, the DIOS was of the opinion that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was in contravention of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short “Act, 1982”).

7. This Court by an interim order dated 31-1-1994 inter-alia had passed the following order :

“In the meanwhile in case the short-term vacancy against which the petitioner had been appointed on 10-10-1993 could not be filled up by any promotion from the next below grade and there has not been any infirmity in following the procedure for making the appointment claimed by the petitioner, in that case the operation of the impugned order dated 18-10-1993 shall remain stayed and the petitioner will be entitled to the payment of salary hence forth admissible to a lecturer provided he has been discharging duties attached to the office.

The payment of salary made if any shall however
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top