Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.10.1997 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, in compliance to the order, dated 4.7.1997, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20899 of 1997, by which the Director of Education has affirmed the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, dated 19.9.994 and held the appointment of the petitioner illegal and quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur dated 9.12.1996 by which the appointment of the petitioner has been held valid.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that it was the claim of the petitioner that by the resolution dated 10.12.1990 passed by the Committee of Management, the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer in Biology on ad hoc basis in an institution S.A.V. Inter College Bharthana, Etawah a recognized Government aided institution in accordance to Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. When the petitioner has not been paid salary, he filed Writ Petition No. 25530 of 1994 which has been disposed of vide order dated 4.8.2012 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has filed second Writ Petition No. 27125 of 1994 which has been disposed of vide order dated 19.8.1994 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah to dispose of the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity. With reference to the aforesaid two orders passed in writ petitions, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and it has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was forged. Against the said order of the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9876 of 1995 which has been disposed of vide order dated 12.1.1996 directing the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur vide order dated 9.12.1996 has allowed the representation of the petitioner and recognized the appointment of the petitioner on 10.12.1990 and has further directed to pay salary from the date of 1.7.1996, the actual date of taking of the charge. Against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the Committee of Management filed Writ Petition No. 20899 of 1997 which has been disposed of vide order dated 4.7.1997 directing the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. to decide the appeal filed by the Committee of Management after giving opportunity of hearing. In pursuance thereof, the present order has been passed. The Director of Education has held that as per the report of the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah during the period 17.8.1990 to 30.6.1991 Sri Krishna Behari Agarwal was the officiating Principal of the College and not Sri Ishwar Dayal Chaturvedi. The vacant post had to be filled up by promotion quota on which Sri Raghuveer Singh Yadav was subsequently promoted. The appointment has not been made in accordance to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl's Inter College and others, reported in : (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551, and in accordance to the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 inasmuch as for the vacant post no advertisement has been made in two newspapers and as per the petitioner's own case the notice has only been affixed on the notice board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer against the vacant post on ad hoc basis was made by the resolution dated 2.12.1990 passed by the then Committee of Management and the appointment letter has been issued by the then Principal of the College Sri Ishwar Dayal Chaturvedi. He submitted that the ad hoc appointment was made after affixing the notice on the notice board and, therefore, it was in accordance to law. He further submitted that during the period when the petitioner was appointed Sri Krishna Behari Agarwal was under suspension and Sri Ishwar Dayal Chaturvedi was the officiating Principal. The appointment of the petitioner was in accordance to law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the appointment letter dated 4.12.1990 was issued by the Manager and petitioner submitted the joining on 10.12.1990 through Sri Ishwar Dayal Chaturvedi. He further submitted that Sri Raghuveer Singh Yadav was also appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Lecturer Commerce by the same resolution dated 2.12.1990 and he also joined on 10.12.1990. His appointment has been held valid by the Regional Deputy Director of Education but the order of the Deputy Director of Education in his case has not been challenged by the Committee of Management and his appointment stands valid and the writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Education has also been dismissed by this Court, therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioner's appointment should also be held valid.
(3.) I do not find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The complete facts of the case of Sri Rajeev Sharma is not before this Court. In any view of the matter, in case if the illegal appointment has been made in the case of Rajeev Sharma, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held legal on the ground of parity. The illegal act cannot be perpetuated and justified.;