D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ.

The core ques tion that arised for determination in these appeals is whether a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis in a short-term vacancy, like leave vacancy, is entitled as of right to con tinue in the said post even after the short term vacancy has been converted to a per manent vacancy due to death, resignation or retirement of the permanent incumbent ? The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of Section 33-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Services and Selec tion Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and its interaction with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. The point was referred to Full Bench by a Division Bench by the order passed on 12-4-1994 in Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993. The relevant portion of the said order reads:

"cites judgments of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition 7786 of 1986, Rafiq Ahmad and another v. State of U. P. and others decided on March 10, 1988, Heera Lal Sahuv. District Inspec tor of Schools Kanpur Dehat and others, decided on May 20, 1988. A reading of these judgments would show that there is no reference in either of them to the provisions of Clause-3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary- Education Services Commis sion (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 regarding duration of ad

hoc appointment. In this view of the matter both these judgments in our opinion require reconsideration and we con sequently admit this Special Appeal to Full Bench. "

The other appeals have been ordered to he heard alongwith Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993 since they involve the same point. In the cases referred to in the reference order quoted above this Court took the view that an ad hoc teacher appointed in a short term vacancy, which is subsequently con verted into a permanent vacancy, is en titled to continue in the post till a can didate duly selected by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission joins the post. It is relevant to note here that in both the cases the main question for con sideration of this Court was the claim of salary by the ad hoc teacher. While in the case of Heera Lal Sahu (supra) a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools for payment of arrears salary to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy before him and to continue to pay salary in future till a candidate found best suitable, who is recommended by the Commission, joins the post, in the case of Rafiq Ahmad and another v. State of U. P. and others (Supra) the direction to the District In spector of Schools was to pay to the petitioners their respective salaries and treat them as teachers in the institution ""concerned till their services are either done away in accordance with law or the Board makes a selection of teachers and the selectees of the Board join the post held by the petitioners or Arif Siddiqui returns to his original post.

2. For the sake of brevity and con venience we will refer to the relevant facts in Special Appeal No. 898 of 1995, which is the case in which detailed arguments were ad vanced before us. This Special Appeal was filed by Smt. Pramila Mishra, an Assistant Teacher of Nagar Palika Balika Inter Col lege, Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai challeng ing the judgment dated 29-9-1995 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19152 of 1995. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Sneh Lata

Mishra, respondent No. 5 in the appeal, citing the Deputy Director of Education Jhansi Division Jhansi, Regional In-spectress of Girls School/deputy Director of Education- II Jhansi, District Inspector of School Jalaun at Orai, Nagar Palika Balika Inter College, Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai through its Officer-in- Charge and Smt. Pramila Mishra the appellant, as respondents. The petitioner challenged the order dated 6-7-1995 of the Deputy Direc tor of Education, Jhansi, disapproving the extension of her ad hoc appointment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document