Birendra Dikshit, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 6 -9 -1990 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun (referred as D.I.O.S.) whereby he cancelled the approval granted by him on 27 -8 -1990 in respect of petitioners for appointment as ad hoc Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982 (referred as Service Commission Act) at Chhatra Sal Inter College, Jalaun (referred as Institution). Counter affidavit and rejoinder -affidavit being exchanged, the counsel for the parties are agreeable that writ petition can be disposed of at this stage of admission. The writ petition has been heard accordingly and it is being disposed of at the stage of admission in accordance with Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE essential facts are that Management of the Institution invited applications for making ad hoc appointments on 12 posts of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade which included 7 posts on which petitioners are working. These applications were invited in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Act for making appointments after notifying the vacancies to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (referred as Commission). The Management held selection on 20th August, 1990 and by means of the letter dated 23 -8 -1990 the Manager of the Institution forwarded relevant papers to the D.I.O.S. seeking financial sanction to said ad hoc appointment. The D.I.O.S. being satisfied with selection granted approval on 27 -8 -1990 for making ad hoc appointment of selected persons petitioners being amongst selected persons. On 1 -9 -1990 D.I.O.S. informed the Manager of Institution that he has received certain complaints in respect of selection for appointment of Assistant Teachers for whom approval was granted. As the D.I.O.S. intended to hold inquiry, he directed that till further order and during the pendency of inquiry his order of approval dated 27 -8 -1990 will remain suspended. Subsequently on 6 -9 -1990 the D.I.O.S. passed an order cancelling the approval dated 27 -8 -1990. The reason assigned by the D.I.O.S. for cancelling the approval was that the eight posts of Assistant Teachers of L.T. Grade stood surrendered under Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (referred as Regulations) which cannot be filled up without getting them revived from Director of Education. He permitted Management to fill up the four short term vacancies by passing resolution after considering the requirement of Institution. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners for quashing of the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 6 -9 -1990 so that the approval dated 27 -8 -1990 may revive and petitioners' selection and appointment be held to be valid. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the D.I.O.S. erred in cancelling the approval for the reason that the 8 posts lapsed under Chapter II Regulation 20 of the Regulations, as it was inapplicable in respect of posts on which approval for petitioners was granted. The submission has been that Chapter II, Regulation 20 is inapplicable in respect of appointment of Assistant Teachers of L.T. Grade on the posts at Institution after enforcement of Act as the vacancies are to be notified to the Commission and it is Commission alone which advertises the vacancies and not the Committee of Management of the Institution. He contended that the Committee of Management of the Institution did not have any power to advertise the vacancies within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of the vacancies as the vacancies are advertised under Service Commission Act wherever Service Commission Act is applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that approval to petitioners' appointment cannot be cancelled on that ground He relied upon the case of Yogendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools : (1991) 17 ALR 312 in support of his submission that the approval of appointments cannot be cancelled on such a ground. He further contended that even if it is accepted that the vacancies lapsed then too the approval in respect of petitioners' appointment could not be cancelled, who were appointed on vacancies which were for short -term. Lastly, he submitted that the order dated 6 -9 -1990 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel tried to justify the order passed by the D.I.O.S. submitting that since the vacancies were Lot revived and fresh sanction was not obtained from the Director of Education under Chapter II, Regulation 20, the said vacancies could not be notified to the Commission and no ad hoc appointment could be made under section 18 of the Act He further submitted that the approval dated 27 -8 -1990 was obtained by the Management in collusion with a Clerk at the office of D.I.O.S. and, therefore, was liable to be cancelled on that ground. Lastly, he submitted that the order was passed after providing necessary opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.;