M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as lecturer in Hindi in leave vacancy on 30-1-87 which is evident by Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Financial concurrence was given to the appointment on 2-2-87. That the person in whose leave vacancy the petitioner was appointed is said to have resigned his post with effect from 18-8-89. He was a confirmed lecturer.
(2.) ON 14-5-90, it is stated that the Manager of the institution informed the Principal of the College that a substantive vacancy had arisen due to the acceptance of resignation of Sri Barmeshwar Nath Rai with effect from 15-1-90, Regularisation order of the petitioner had not been received, therefore, his salary shall not be paid. ON the letter of the Manager the Principal is said to have directed the College authority not to prepare the salary bill of the petitioner of May, 1990. The petitioner was informed that short term vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy so he will be treated to be not in service and his services would be deemed to have been terminated. The petitioner's case is that till the vacancy is filled up by the Commission he is entitled to hold the post and his services cannot be dispensed with. ON the basis of these facts he claims the salary of the post and prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to treat the petitioner's services as dispensed with. In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term on ad hoc basis against a leave vacancy. The petitioner's short term ad hoc appointment was approved on the condition that he had to work for a fixed term and on the expiry of the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools he will cease to hold the post. No further extension was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted salary thereafter, to which objection was raised by the District Inspector of Schools. Since the petitioner's fixed term appointment on ad hoc basis had ceased, therefore, there was direction by respondent No. 1 to realise the salary which was paid to the petitioner after the post became subsequently vacant and after his appointment came to an end. The Committee of Management is said to have notified the vacancy of the petitioner to the Commission. The vacancy which was caused by the resignation of a Hindi lecturer is to be filled up by promotion first from the candidates available in the institution on ad hoc basis. The vacancy became available on 15-1-90 when the resignation of a lecturer holding the post on substantive basis was accepted. As such the post had to be filled up by promotion from the teachers available in the Institution. The petitioner, therefore, cannot hold the post. It is stated that there are senior teachers available in the College and they are eligible for being promoted against the vacancy as lecturer. The petitioner cannot be, therefore, paid salary because he has no right to continue on the post. The committee of management is said to have passed a resolution appointing Sri Dinesh Rai on the post of lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis in accordance with Removal of Difficulties Orders. This appointment order is marked as Annexure-C.A.-7 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit also. It is stated that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, whereby he had asked the Management to realise the salary paid to the petitioner is violative of the Court's order. No such order can be passed because the petitioner has discharged his duties. It is stated that the petitioner has been working on ad hoc basis and the vacancy has not been filled by the Commission, therefore, he is entitled to hold the post till the vacancy is filled up under the Commission Act. The eligibility of the person in whose favour resolution of appointment was made is also challenged. It is stated that there is no person eligible in the Institution who can hold the post and the eligibility is to be determined on the date as the vacancy had arisen.
(3.) THE petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder-affidavit also and lie has reiterated the same plea which he has urged in the rejoinder-affidavit. One Mr. Ram Autar Rai has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that the certificate filed by the petitioner with the rejoinder- affidavit issued by the Principal of the Institution regarding continuance of the work of the petitioner is false. It is stated that the petitioner has not been assigned any work nor was he in service of the College. To this also reply has been filed by the petitioner. It is stated that Ram Autar Rai cannot say any thing about the status of the petitioner. He is only an employee. The petitioner is serving in the institution.;