Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Saral Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that pursuant to an order dated 21.2.2007 issued by District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad the Committee of Management and Principal of Pali Inter College, Shikohabad, District-Firozabad have not allowed the petitioner to be appointed as Lecturer in Hindi pursuant to his engagement as Subject Expert in the institution on 1.8.2001.

2. The State Government vide order dated 9.12.1988 had imposed a restriction on creation of new post in private aided intermediate colleges, but in view of increase in number of students a necessity arose for further appointment of teachers. Therefore, a via media was evolved for creation of pool of ‘subject experts’ to the extent of 3000 teachers and from that pool the requirement of various institutions would be fulfilled. The said ‘subject experts’ were to be selected on the basis of their academic qualification, experience and interview. The departmental selection committee was constituted and included the Director of Education (Secondary), Chief Accounts Officer, concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and Regional Joint Director of Education. Under the aforesaid Government Order by such a selection committee petitioner claims to have been selected as ‘subject expert’ and was allotted the aforesaid college. Such ‘subject experts’ were to be appointed on fixed emoluments of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

3. The appointment and selection of ‘teachers’ of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. To accommodate such ‘subject experts’ an amendment was brought by way of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2006 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 2006). Section 3 of the Act prescribes for insertion of new Sections 21-E and 21-F after Section 21-D. Section 21-E is quoted herein below:

“21-E. Absorption of subject experts.—(1) There shall be a list of subject experts working in private aided secondary schools possessing prescribed educational and training qualification including the subject experts who have received honorarium and worked for a minimum period of two academic sessions and were working on September 30, 2006. The list shall be maintained by the Director in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any substantive vacancy in the post of a teacher in an institution is to be filled by direct recruitment, such post shall, at the instance of the Inspector, be offered by the management to a subject expert whose name is included in the list referred to in sub-section(1).

(3) Where any subject expert who is offered an appointment in accordance with the provision of sub-section (2) fails to join the post within the time allowed, which shall not be less than seven days, his name shall be removed from the list, referred to in sub-section (1).

(4) No appointment of any teacher to an institution shall be made under Section 16 unless the list referred to in sub-section (1) is exhausted.

(5) The subject experts included in the list referred to in sub-section (1) shall be absorbed in those institution where any substantive vacancy is to be filled by directed recruitment. No subject expert shall have claim for appointment to any particular post.”

4. A plain reading of Section 21-E of the Act indicates that ‘subject experts’ working in private aided secondary schools possess prescribed educational qualification and training qualification including the ‘subject experts’ who have received honorarium and worked for a minimum period of two academic sessions and working from September 30, 2006 will be given regular appointment in the institution in Lecture grade on any substantive vacancy that may occur in the sanctioned posts of that gr