The central legal point established in the judgment is that an ad hoc appointment made under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 can be regularised under Section 33-C, and certain procedural irregularities do not necessarily invalidate the appointment.

1. This special appeal Is filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2001 (S/S). The appellants are the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the second petitioner in the writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Science (LT Grade) in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Kathgodam. In the appointment letter, it was specifically stated that the appointment was on ad hoc basis and that the appointment could be terminated as and when a candidate selected by the Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) joined duty. It was also stated that the salary of the petitioner would be paid from the Parent Teacher Association Fund. The said appointment of the petitioner was never approved by any educational authorities. According to the petitioner, since such approval was not necessary, approval was not sought. However, the petitioner continued in service. When candidates were selected by the Board for regular appointment, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in the year 1996 claiming regularisation of his appointment and obtained an interim order staying the appointment of the candidate selected by the Board. In view of the stay order, the candidate selected by the Board could not be appointed and the petitioner continued in service.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, Section 33-C was incorporated in the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) with effect from 20-04-1998. As per Section 33-C, 'any teacher who was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Grade, shall be given substantive appointment by the Management'. Admittedly, Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) and Trained Graduate Grade are one and the same. After coming into force of Section 33-C, the petitioner amended the writ petition to claim regularisation of his appointment under Section 33-C of the Act. Order in the writ petition :

"Heard Sri S.N. Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order, as the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of section 33 C of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 and arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioners as the petitioners are teaching."

Pursuant to the said order of the Court, the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region considered the matter and passed an order dated 08-10-2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The claim was rejected on the ground that, for regularisation under Section 33-C, the ad hoc appointment should have been made In accordance with Section 18 of the above-mentioned Act, but the appointment of the petitioner was not In accordance with Section 18. It was also stated In the order dated 08-10-2003 that the District Inspector of Schools, Nainital had not approved the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner, for the reason that It was not In accordance with Section 18. It was further stated that before making the appointment, the vacancy was not advertised in newspapers or names of candidates were not called for from the Employment Exchange. The petitioner again amended the writ petition for Including a prayer to quash the said order dated 08-10-2003 of the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region.

4. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the Single Bench as per the judgment Impugned in this Special Appeal. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the claim of the petitioner was upheld and the objections raised by the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein) were overruled. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Special Appeal has been filed.

5. The first