M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the effect that he continues to be a C.T. grade teacher on adhoc basis in P. J. M. Intermediate College, Sharkot district Bijnor. THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6-12-1988. THE facts giving rise to the present controversy are summarised as under.
(2.) THE petitioner states that due to illness of one C.T. grade teacher, Radhey Shyam, he was asked to take classes without payment of salary by the District Inspector of Schools. He started teaching from 17-7-1984. This is reflected by the certificate of the Principal dated 22-2- 1988, a copy whereof is placed on record as an annexure. THE said Radhey Shyam is said to have applied for six months leave w.e.f. 1-8-1988 to 31-1-1989 on account of his illness which was sanctioned by the committee of management. To fill up the short-term vacancy process was initiated by the college and an advertisement notice dated 21-7-1988 was issued by the management. In pursuance of the said advertisement notice the petitioner applied for being appointed as adhoc teacher in short-term leave vacancy. THE petitioner was selected for adhoc appointment on the post. Since he was already working on the post without pay, therefore, he was allowed to continue on the post. Papers for his adhoc appointment were not forwarded by the management of the college till 28-10-1988. THE management wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 29-10- 1988 along with the papers. THE adhoc appointment of the petitioner was thereafter approved by a letter dated 26-11-1988 by the District Inspector of Schools A copy of the said letter is placed on the record as an annexure THE petitioner says that the papers for approval were received by the District Inspector of Schools on 29-10-1988 but he had not taken decision within seven days as required by Rule 2 (3) (iii) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981). THErefore, the petitioner's services will be deemed to have been approved after expiry of one week from 29-10-1988. THE petitioner's adhoc appointment was approved on 1-11-88 though it should have been approved from 1-8-1988. THE order dated 26-11-1988 was modified by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-12-1988 which made the salary of the petitioner payable after 26-11-1988, from the date of actual joining. A copy of this order is also placed on the record as an annexure. THE order of the District Inspector of Schools is said to be illegal because the petitioner was already working and his appointment was also approved, therefore, he could not be granted pay after 26-11-1988; THE pay was to be granted to him with effect from his joining. The said Radhey Shyam, C.T. grade teacher, had died on 21-12- 1988. Due to his death the short-term leave vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy. After reopening of the institution in 1989 the petitioner was not allowed to work on the post of C.T. grade teacher. The respondents have taken the stand that since the petitioner's appointment was in leave term vacancy and the leave term vacancy had come to an end, therefore, the petitioner's services had automatically come to an end and he was not entitled to be appointed on the post. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to continue on the post till the post is filled up through regular selection by the Regional Selection Board. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and certiorari. In their reply the respondents have stated that the petitioner used to take classes of any subject in place of teacher, who was absent. Because of his visiting the college regularly and impressing the Principal of the college who developed soft corner for him. The certificate issued to the petitioner in this regard is said to be incorrect It is stated that the petitioner started taking classes without salary after November, 1985. It is stated that the substantive vacancy is to be filled up under the Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981 for which a different procedure is prescribed;
(3.) IN his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated his assertions and claimed that after the short-term leave vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy he was entitled to continue on the post till regular selection was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.;