R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioners were appointed as C. T. Grade teachers in Swami Vivekanand Inter College, Kaserua, P.O. Sahson, district Allahabad by the committee of management by letters of appointment dated 2-7-1986. After having made the appointments, Committee of Management requested the D.I.O.S. for payment of their salary and for approval of their appointments. The D.I.O.S. by order dated 12/13-1-1987 has declined to grant approval on the ground that the management of the college has no power to make appointments. It is against this order of the D.T.O.S. that this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The D.T.O.S. as well as Committee of Management of the college have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is only the committee of management of the college which can make the appointment and the D.I.O.S. does not come in picture. It is not possible for me to agree with the learned counsel. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before me the First and Second Removal of Difficulties Orders, 1981. The First Removal of Difficulties Order would obviously not apply as the vacancies against which the petitioners have been appointed are substantive vacancies which came into existence in 1985 on account of retirement and death of two teachers of the college. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right that Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 will apply, as by virtue of its paragraph 5 ad hoc appointment can be made under this Order against the substantive vacancy caused by death or retirement etc. But under this Order management cannot appoint a teacher unless it has sent the names of the selected candidates along with the relevant papers to the D.I.O.S. his approval and he has either approved it or has not communicated his decision within the time specified therein It has not been pleaded in the writ petition that after the selection of the petitioners by the management their names along with relevant record was sent to the D.I.O.S. for approval. It is also not pleaded that the D.I.O.S. has neither granted approval or has not communicated his approval within the stipulated time. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the D. I. O. S it has been specifically averred in paragraphs 7, 9, and 11 that appointments have been made in violation of Removal of Difficulties Order and the D.I.O.S. was informed in December, 1986 about the appointments of these petitioners made on 2-7-1986. These averments have not been effectively denied in the rejoinder affidavit. In the absence of prior approval of the D.I.O.S. appointments of petitioners could not have been made by the Committee of Management and the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.;