- (1.) Petitioner Baij Nath Singh has filed these two writ petitions. By means of the first writ petition he has prayed for quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.4.1989 whereunder he granted approval to the appointment of respondent No. 3 as C.T. Grade teacher in Dr. Shyama Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Loosi Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition on 19.5.1989 stayed the operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.4.1989, however it permitted the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, passed an order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 24.3.1992 wherein it has been held that the approval granted to the ad hoc appointment of Rajendra Pratap Singh was in accordance with law. This order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.3.1992 has been challenged by means of the second writ petition. I have heard Shri Rahul Jain on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satendra Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3 (Rajendra Pratap Singh) and Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
(2.) Facts in short relevant for deciding the controversy are as follows: (i) Two posts of L.T. Grade teacher were created in the institution under order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 8.1.1988 Ram Ashish and Kailash Yadav who were working in the institution were granted promotion as L.T. Grade teacher. The vacancy so caused in C.T. Grade were advertised on the notice board of the institution for being filled by direct recruitment. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied. It may be recorded that the vacancy being short term was to be filled in terms of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 dated 31.7.1981 (herein after referred to as the Order dated 31.7.1981). The Selection Committee of Manager and Principal of the institution after considering the applications made by the candidates awarded quality point marks and thereafter proceeded to hold interview. (ii) The original records pertaining to the selections have been produced before this Court by the Standing Counsel which have been examined in presence of the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the contesting respondent. The Tabulation sheet prepared by the management of the institution discloses the quality point marks as well as the marks awarded in the interview. The selected candidate namely Chandra Shekhar Mishra had secured 25 quality point marks and 08 marks in interview, the total marks achieved are 33. There is no dispute about Chandra Shekhar Mishra. So for as the petitioner is concerned he has secured 13 quality point marks and after adding 05 marks obtained by him in interview, the total marks obtained by the petitioner has been shown as 18. Respondent No. 3 is shown to have secured 16 quality point marks after adding 12 interview marks, he achieved 28 marks in total. Against the name of respondent No. 3 the word Chayanit has been written while against the name of the petitioner the word Achayanit has been written.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the aforesaid tabulation chart has been prepared at a later point of time inasmuch under the resolution of the Committee of Management, no reference has been made to any selection proceedings or the selected candidate being superior in merit than the petitioner. He further contended that quality point marks received by the petitioner and the respondents as required under order dated 31.7.1981 on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in High School, Intermediate and B.Ed. Examinations would work out to same i.e., 13. The respondent Rajendra Pratap Singh has wrongly been shown to have secured 16 marks. To be precise, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had passed his High School examination in 3rd division, Intermediate examination in 2nd division and B.Ed. Examination (Theory) in 3rd division and Practical in 3rd division. Therefore, he is entitled to 13 marks. While in the case of respondent No. 3 it is contended that he had also passed his High School examination in 3rd division, Intermediate examination in 2nd division, B.Ed, examination (Theory) in 3rd division and Practical in 2nd division.;