ORDER :

CIVIL MISC DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2019

This appeal is barred by limitation from 103 days.

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

ON APPEAL

1. This Special Appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2019 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A. No. 16669 of 2001 (Pramod Kumar Pandey and others Vs. The DIOS and others) whereby the learned Single Bench arrived at conclusion that ad-hoc appointments of appellant-petitioners in short term vacancies were not made in accordance with procedure prescribed in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order 1981 under para 2(3) (ii) and (iii).

2. In brief, Shakeldeha Inter College, Post Shakeldeha, District Chandauli, (in short referred as the 'Institution') is an aided and recognized Institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder are fully applicable. The U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 is also applicable in the said Institution.

3. According to the appellant-petitioners seven posts of short term vacancies in L.T. Grade teachers fell vacant at the Institution. The Committee of Management (Authorized Controller) sought permission of District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred as DIOS) to make ad-hoc appointments on short term vacancies. DIOS did not reply. Vacancies were then advertised in daily news paper. Fifteen days time was allowed to prospective candidates to submit their applications. Thereafter, the Authorized Controller vide resolution dated 5.10.1997 and 12.10.1997 resolved to appoint appellants as Assistant Teachers on ad-hoc basis in the vacancies caused due to ad-hoc promotion. The appointment letters were issued to the appellants and then documents of all appellants were forwarded to DIOS on 17.10.1997 seeking approval of aforesaid seven ad-hoc appointment made on short term basis.

4. The appellant-petitioners joined the Institution in the Month of October, 1997 on various dates. However, salary was not paid to the appellants from State Exchequer by the District Inspector of Schools. The appellant-petitioners filed a writ being Writ Petition No. 23482 of 2000 before this Court, which was disposed off vide order dated 13.3.2001 directing the DIOS to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, DIOS passed an order dated 25.4.2001 holding that ad-hoc appointments made by the Management were contrary to the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as amended in 1995 and the same had been made without following the procedure prescribed under the statute, therefore the same were illegal and appellant-petitioners were not entitled for payment of salary. It is noteworthy that the order dated 25.4.2001 records that the vacancies in dispute were not short term vacancy but substantive vacancy. The said order of DIOS was challenged by the appellant-petitioners before this Court by filing Writ A No. 16669 of 2001, wherein learned Single Bench came to the conclusion that ad-hoc appointments of appellant-petitioners made on short-term vacancies were not made in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order 1981 under para 2 (3)(ii) and (iii) and there was clear infraction thereof, hence the appointment of appellant-petitioners were illegal and void ab-initio. The State has not disputed the correctness of the conclusion reached by learned Single Bench. We, therefore, proceed on the premise that the vacancies were short term.

5. Against the said order present appeal has been filed.

6. Heard learned couns