S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) The question that crops up for consideration in this Special Appeal is as to whether ad hoc appointment of a Lecturer in a recognised intermediate College can be made by promotion under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act'), read with provisions contained in the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 (in short 'the Rules) in respect of a 'vacancy' which is ultimately to be filled in by direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Lady Prasanna Kaur Inter College. Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur is a recognised Intermediate College (in short the 'college'). A substantive vacancy in the post of Lecturer (English) occurred on 1.7.1996. The vacancy fell in the 50% quota prescribed for direct recruitment. The Committee of Management of the college, however, passed a resolution on 16.11.1995 for giving ad hoc promotion to the appellant in the vacant post of Lecturer in English as the appellant according to the Committee of Management was qualified for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 11.3.1997 for financial approval for the promotion of the appellant. The letter dated 11.3.1997 states that the Committee of Management had taken the vacancy in question to be one falling within 50% quota to be filled in by promotion. It appears that no decision in the matter was communicated by the District Inspector of Schools to the Management of the college whereupon the appellant filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30587 of 1997 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to pay him salary in the Lecturer's grade since the date he started functioning as such. The said writ petition was disposed of by Judgment and order dated 18.9.1997 with the direction that the petitioner would submit a representation before the District Inspector of Schools who would examine as to whether ad hoc promotion of the appellant was valid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1981. It appears that the attention of the learned Judge was not invited to the amended Section 18 and the Rules providing for ad hoc appointment of teachers and that is why the direction was to examine whether the ad hoc promotion was valid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the representation vide order dated 16.3.1998. Whereupon the appellant filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 10770 of 1998 which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant-petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach the Regional Deputy Director of Education under clause 7 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended by U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Fourth Order, 1982. Thereafter the, matter was taken up in Special Appeal wherein the question raised was that the rule of 50% quota of promotion and direct recruitment would not be applicable to ad hoc appointments. The Special Appeal Bench declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge but disposed of the appeal with the direction that the Regional Deputy Director of Education will take note of the contention and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
(3.) Thereafter the matter was examined by the Joint Director of Education 7th Region. Gorakhpur who rejected the representation and maintained the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools though on a different ground holding that the ad hoc promotion of the appellant was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. referred to above. The Joint Director clearly held that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1981 would not apply and instead the provisions in the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 1995 would govern the appointment. Aggrieved against the order dated 15.2.1999 passed by the Joint Director of Education, the appellant filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order under challenge in this appeal. The learned single Judge was of the view that the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 1995 which came into force on 8.5.1995 would govern the present case and the Rule of 50% quota of direct recruitment and promotion would govern ad hoc appointment as well. Aggrieved the petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal.;