Sunil Hali, J. - (1.) ON account of short term vacancy which became available on account of promotion of Mr. v. D. Pandey to the post of Lecturer, Petitioner came to be appointed on ad -hoc basis as Assistant Teacher. This was proceeded by an advertisement notice issued by the Management calling the eligible candidates. After interview, selection process was concluded in the appointment of the Petitioner as Assistant Teacher on ad -hoc basis and the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter to the Petitioner appointing him on 28.9.1993. Thereafter, Petitioner joined on the post and started working w.e.f. 1.10.1993. The Committee of Management forwarded relevant papers regarding selection of the Petitioner for seeking financial approval. Approval was accorded by the Deputy Inspector of Schools regarding appointment of the Petitioner on 31.1.1995 despite that salary was not released to the Petitioner. Repeated reminders were made by the Petitioner in this behalf.
(2.) HAVING failed to obtain any response from the Respondent No. 2 (DIOS) Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 16050 of 1997, in which an interim order was passed directing the Respondents to make payment of salary to the Petitioner. The said writ petition came to be finally disposed of on 21.4.2005 directing the Respondents to take decision in the matter after satisfying as to whether the approval has been accorded by the Respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the direction of this Court. But without taking into account the direction of this Court and the facts submitted by the Petitioner, impugned order has been passed on 19.12.2006. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court. The stand of the Respondents as reflected in the impugned order is (a) that there was ban in making appointment; (b) that the Selection Committee was not competent to make appointment for short term; (c) that the appointment was not approved by the DIOS and (d) that the appointment was made before the approval was accorded.
(3.) IN respect of the first contention raised, it is stated that this question has been dealt with by a co -ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6015 (S/S) of 1994 (Ram Samhar v. DIOS, Sultanpur and Anr.) decided on February 6, 1997. This Court while dealing with question has made the following observation: Insofar as the other reason given by the District Inspector of Schools for not granting approval due to the ban imposed by the State Government through G.O. dated 24.06.1993 and for that reasons the ad -hoc appointment made after imposition of ban cannot be approved, would also not survive, in view of the fact that the statutory provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 cannot be nullified or made ineffective by a Government order. The statutory provisions of the Act have provided for making ad -hoc appointment under certain contingency and this cannot be undone by issuing a Government order so as to make the statutory provisions redundant or ineffective.;