- (1.) This writ petition is filed by the Committee of Management of the petitioner's College. It is averred that in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, hereinafter called as the Act; the petitioner notified--Vacancies existing in the College in June, 1983. Information of this was given to the D.I.O.S. Gorakhpur on 15-6-1983. The petitioner had notified the vacancy in relation to a post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade which had fallen vacant at the time of issuance of notification. The vacancy had occurred because one teacher was transferred to another institution on 8-11-1982. The said transferred teacher was a science teacher and in his absence the Committee of Management had asked Sri Tahsildar Singh who had knowledge of science, to teach science in junior section of the college in the interest of the students. A request was made to the D.I.O.S. to appoint the said Tahsildar Singh on ad hoc basis. The D.I.O.S. is said to have recommended that one Jeet Narain Singh be appointed as ad hoc teacher in C.T. Grade by his letter dated 4-11-1982. The said teacher had never reported for duty to the Manager or the Principal of the College.. The D.I.O.S. did not take any steps in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982, hereinafter called as the Order. The petitioner waited for a long time after the declaration of the vacancy but when no response was available from respondent No. 1 the Committee of Management through its Manager appointed Tahsildar Singh as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on ad hoc basis with effect from 9-5-1983. A resolution was also passed in this regard by the authorities of the management and the Manager was authorised to obtain approval of the D.I.O.S. Gorakhpur. The Manager is said to have informed the D.I.O.S. about the resolution of the Managing Committee appointing Sri Tahsildar Singh as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade to teach science in junior section on ad hoc basis. The D.I.O.S. is said to have disapproved the proposal on 27-5-1983 on the ground that the College closed for summer vacation and the vacancy was substantive. In the month of June, 1983, vacancies are said to have been notified but no selection was made by the Selection Board. The petitioner passed a fresh resolution on 19-2-1984 appointing Sri Tahsildar Singh as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on ad hoc basis in the College under Section 18 of the Act. Copy of the resolution was handed over to the D.I.O.S. in this regard on 21-2-1984. The D.I.O.S. is said to have written to the Manager by his letter dated 30-4-1984 that the Committee of Management had no power or authority to make any appointment on ad hoc basis. He referred to his earlier order dated 27-5-1983. The petitioner is said to have filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of respondent No. 1 dated 30-4-1984 on various grounds. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appointment was made without notifying the post. In the counter-affidavit filed in that writ petition, it was stated that copy of the resolution dated 19-2-1984 was not received in the Office of the D.I.O.S. That was also a ground for dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) Thereafter copy of the resolution dated 19-2-1984 was supplied to the Office of the D.I.O.S. on 9-10-1985. Two more letters are said to have been addressed to the D.I.O.S. for granting approval to the ad hoc appointment of Tahsildar Singh. On 7-3-1985 the respondents have passed an order refusing the approval to the appointment of Tahsildar Singh as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on ad hoc basis. He referred order dated 4-11-1982 by which he appointed Sri Jeet Narain Singh, to be complied with. The D.I.O.S. seems to be of the view that the Managing Committee has no authority to make appointment to fill up the vacancy in the College under the provisions of the Order of 1981. This view of the D.I.O.S. is said to be erroneous. The petitioner is said to have declared the vacancy on 15-6-1983. The post is lying vacant since 9-11-1982 and the resolution dated 19-2-1984 for filling up the vacancy was already made. The order of the D.I.O.S. is wrong. The order of appointment of Tahsildar Singh is said to have been passed under Section 18 of the Act. The Committee of Management alone is the authority to make ad hoc appointment after declaring the vacancy and if within time the vacancy is not filled up, ad hoc appointment made by the Committee of Management is permissible. As regards Mr. Jeet Singh who was appointed by the D.I.O.S. it was reported that he did not report to his duty and was not traceable, The D.I.O.S. has asked the petitioner to do some thing which could not be done inasmuch as the vacancy had arisen on 8-11-1982 and the D.I.O.S. wanted to appoint some one on 4-11-1982 when the vacancy had not occurred. On the aforesaid grounds writs of mandamus and certiorari are claimed by the petitioner.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is averred that if Jeet Narain Singh did not report for duty it was necessary for the petitioner to apprise the D.I.O.S. of the full facts. The Committee of Management is said to have no power to make appointment against the substantive vacancy under the Rules of 1981. The Board was not constituted for making selection to C.T. Grade teachers and no requisition was made with regard to the appointment in C.T. Grade. The D.I.O.S. is said to have decided the matter in accordance with the orders of this Court. The counter filed by the other side on the matter is evasive and vague.;