- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15-5-1997 whereby services of the petitioners have been dispensed with by the order of the District Inspector of Schools who has disapproved the papers submitted to him for their appointments. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that it was in the year 1996 that some posts of L. T. grade teacher in the institution known as Raghub Sahai Inter College, Aligarh, which were short term in nature, fell vacant, which were advertised in a local newspaper. The petitioners including other persons made application for their appointments as they came to know about the said vacancies. It was on 29-10-1996 that the Committee of Management selected the petitioners for appointment on the said posts and appointment letters were issued to them, the petitioners on the strength of which joined the institution on 1-11-1996. After their joining, the papers relating to their appointment were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the request made by the Committee of Management for approval on the ground that the Committee of Management was not competent to appoint the said persons on the posts in question by the impugned order dated 15-5-1997. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners were appointed after following the procedure prescribed under the law and since then they have been working on the posts in question, therefore, they are entitled to continue to hold the posts in question at least till candidates selected for appointment by the Commission join the posts. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 37497 of 1996, Chatur Singh and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others, decided on 3-12-1996. In the said case, reference has also been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in J. A. S. Inter College, Khurja, U. P. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 1996 (3) E. S. C. 151 (SC ). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel vehemently urged that the question involved in the present petition stands decided and concluded by a Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 (F. B.), in which it has been held that the procedure for appointment to fill the short term vacancy in so far as it relates to advertisement of vacancy is concerned, will be the same as of a permanent vacancy. Reliance has been placed on paragraph 43 of the judgment in support of said submission.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is well-settled in law that the appointments on permanent vacancies are to be filled in educational institutions of Uttar Pradesh after following the procedure prescribed under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. In the present case, admittedly, the vacancies of L. T. grade teachers were of short term. The short term vacancies, according to the petitioners, could be filled by the Committee of Management after intimation to the authorities concerned and after Notification of the same on the Notice Board and the newspaper. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed by the Committee of Management after the said vacancies were advertised in one local newspaper only. The Full Bench, in the abovenoted case, ruled as under: - "i am, therefore, of the view that the procedure for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as it is for the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The management after intimating such vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools advertise such short term vacancy at least in two Newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh in addition to notifying the said vacancy on the notice board of the institution and further the application may also be invited from the local employment exchange. Thus, the procedure provided for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Thereafter, the procedure provided in sub-paragraph (3) (i, ii, iii, iv) of Paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed for making such appointment. " In view of the aforesaid decision, it cannot be said that the appointments of the petitioners were valid. Therefore, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be invalid. So far as the decision of this Court in Chatur Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the said case is distinguishable on facts. Reliance was placed by learned Single Judge upon a decision of the Supreme Court in J. A. S. Inter College's case (supra ). In the said case, direction was issued by the Supreme Court for appointment of certain persons on ad hoc basis. Some of them were appointed by the Committee of Management but some of the posts remained vacant. The Committee of Management filled up those vacancies by making ad hoc appointments. It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court had ruled that the ad hoc appointees could continue to hold the posts till regularly selected candidates by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board are appointed, therefore, the petitioners cannot get any advantage of the said decision in their cases.;