R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) - Consequent to the appointment of Sri Surya Nath Chaturvedi, a C. T. Grade teacher in Inter College Sarsena, Azamgarh (herein-after referred to as the college) to the post of lecturer on ad hoc basis, there came into existence a leave vacancy in the C. T. Grade in the college against which the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 17-2-1985 for a limited period by the Committee of Management of the college. This appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh (here-in-after referred to as the D.I.O.S) for a period up to 20-5-1985. As Sri Chaturvedi, got his leave extended from time to time, the commitee of management continued to appoint the petitioner from time to time for fixed periods with the approval of the D.I.O.S. Sri Surya Nath Chaturvedi filed a writ petition No. 1673 (Cr of 1986 before this Court and obtained a stay order for payment of salary as lecturer on adhoc basis. This Writ Petition is still pending. On account of the stay order granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the leave vacancy in C. T. Grade continued and still exists. The last appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed period up to 30-6-1987. The D.I.O.S. also by his order dated 2-3-1987 accorded approval for appointment of the petitioner as C. T. Grade teacher in the college only up to 30-6-1987. After 30-6-1987, the petitioner was neither appointed in the college nor was he paid any salary. In this connection the petitioner claims to have made several representations to the D.I.O.S. which remained unheeded. Petitioners, as such, has filed this writ petition for regularisatioa and payment of his salary in C. T. Grade from July 1987 up to date
(2.) MANAGING Committee has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been averred that the petitioner has worked as a C. T. Grade teacher in the college only up to 30-6-1987 and during this period he was a regular absentee and was not giving satisfactory service. The MANAGING Committee accordingly advertised the post for appointment of C. T. Grade teacher and in pursuance of the said advertisement Sri Udai Bhan Singh and some others applied but no application was made by the petitioner for appointment in pursuance of the above advertisement. Sri Udai Bhan Singh was appointed as adhoc teacher in C. T. Grade by the Committee of Management of the college with the approval of the D.I.O.S. in pursuance of the advertisement of the post and he is still working in the college. When the petitioner filed this writ petition Sri Udai Bhan Singh was already appointed and was working in the college, even then neither his appointment was challenged nor was he impleaded as a party in the writ petition. Sri Udai Bhan Singh has however, been impleaded as one of the respondents by the Order of this Court dated 7-4- 1989 and has filed a counter affidavit. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed and denied by the respondents. Relying on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Umesh Chandra v. District Inspector of Schools, 1987 Education Cases 57= 1987UP LB EC 105, and Sita Ram Yadav v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1990 (1) AWC 164=1990 (1) UP LB EC 41, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of his appointment as adhoc teacher, petitioner is entitled to continue in service till a duly selected teacher by the Selection Board joins. It is true that this Court in the aforesaid cases has laid down that appintment of teachers on adboc basis under Sec. 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) or under Removal of Difficulties Order issued thereunder, though transitory in nature, is to continue till a candidate selected by Secondary Education Services Commission constituted under the Act joins. But the right of such a teacher to continue till duly selected candidate joins is not an absolute right. If before the duly selected teacher joins, the service of adhoc teacher is terminated and/or some one else is appointed in his place on adhoc basis, the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases will not apply. In the case of Umesh Chandra (supra) the following question was formulated by this Court for its decision : "The short question is whether even though the services of the teachers appointed by the management under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U. P. Act, 5 of 1982) or the U. P Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Orders framed thereunder have not been otherwise duly terminated and there is no candidate recommended for appointment by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission or Selected by Regional Selection Board, the teachers concerned may not continue on adhoc basis beyond June 30, 1986" (emphasis supplied). From the above question it is clear that this Court was of the opinion that adhoc teacher can continue till duly selected candidate joins only if his services have not otherwise been duly terminated. This position has further been made clear in paragraph 22 of the judgment, wherein while allowing the writ petition, this Court issued direction for payment of salary to the petitioners in those cases "till the services of the petitioners are terminated in accordance with law or candidates recommended by the Commission or the Board as the case may be join the post held by the petitioners." In the case of Sita Ram Yadav (supra) this Court laid down that such a teacher is entitled for the payment of salary for the period beyond last terminous, date of approval, for the period for which he has actually worked and issued direction accordingly for payment of salary for the period during which he has actually worked as adhoc teacher. In this connection it may also be observed that in the aforesaid cases decided by this Court, the services of the petitioners had not been terminated directly or indirectly and no body else has been appointed in their places in the respective institutions and those petitioners were continuously working. This Court accordingly made appropriate declaration that they are entitled to continue as adhoc teachers till their services are terminated or a candidate duly selected by the Commission joins and issued direction for payment of salary for the period during which they had actually worked. It necessarily follows from what this Court has laid down in the aforesaid cases that of the services of adhoc teachers are terminated directly or indirectly and/or some body else is appointed in accordance with law on the said post, they are not entitled to any relief either for continuing in service till a candidate duly selected by the Commissioner joins or for payment of salary.
(3.) IN the instant case petitioner was appointed as temporary C. T. Grade teacher in the college initially on 17-2-1985 for the period ending on 20-5-1985 and thereafter he used to be appointed from time to time for a fixed period with the approval of the D.l.O.S. By the last order also, the petitioner was appointed for a period up to 30-6-1987. After 30-6-1987 petitioner was not given any appointment and on the other hand the post was advertised and in pursuance thereof Sri Udai Bhan Singh was appointed on 17-7-1987 and his appointment was approved by the D.I.O.S. on 17-8-1987. Had Sri Udai Bhan Singh not been appointed something could have been said in favour of the petitioner; but by appointment Sri Udai Bhan Singh, right of the petitioner to continue as a teacher was interrupted and came to an end. A vested right of another person having intervened on account of his appointment in place of the petitioner, petitioner has last the right to continue as a teacher. Petitioner as such, cannot succeed unless the appointment of Sri Udai Bhan Singh is quashed. As mentioned here-in-before, Sri Udai Bhan Singh was appointed in place of the petitioner in July, 1987 and his appointment was approved by the D.l.O.S in August, 1987 and when the petitioner tiled this writ petition, Sri Udai Bhan Singh has already been appointed and was working in the college; but even then neither his appointment was challenged by the petitioner nor was he impleaded as one of the respondents Petitioner made an application on 29-7- 1988 for amending the writ petitioner by adding a prayer for quashing the order of appointment of Sri Udai Bhan Singh dated 17-8-1987. This application was allowed by this Court on 7-4-1989 and a supplementary affidavit was permitted to be brought on record. In this application there was no prayer for impleading Sri Udai Bhan Singh as one of the respondents, hence he was not impleaded However, Sri Udai Bhan Singh himself had applied for his impleadment, which was allowed by this Court on 7-4-1989 and he was directed by this Court to be impleaded as respondent no. 3 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was required to carry out the amendment in the Court on that every day. From the perusal of the writ petition, it is quite clear that direction of this Court dared 7-4-1989 for incorporating the amendment including implement of Sri Udai Bhan Singh was not carried out. The position in nut-shall is that inspite of the fact that Sri Udai Bhan Singh was appointed and was working as a teacher in the college at the time when the petitioner filed this writ petition, his appointment was not challenged by the petitioner and be was also not impleaded as one of the respondents It was only after Udai Bhan Singh applied for impleadment in this writ petition that the petitioner made an application in July. 1988 for amendment of the writ petition so as to challenge the appointment of Udai Bhan Singh As mentioned earlier, this application for amendment was allowed by this Court on 7-4-1989. It is thus clear that for full one year the appointment of Udai Bhan Singh was not challenged by the petitioner Challenge to the appointment of Udai Bhan Singh appears to be an after thought and consequential to the application for impleadmeat made by Udai Bhan Singh himself. Petitioner is as such, guilty of acquiescence. He is also guilty of delay and negligence in challenging the appointment of Udai Bhan Singh. As Sri Udai Bhan Singh is working in the college for more than last three years and as there has been undue delay on the part of the petitioner to challenge his appointment and in view of the fact that the petitioner has earlier acquited his appointment and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not consider it fit and proper to interfere with his appointment in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;