- (1.) HEARD Shri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P.K. Jain for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) THESE are two connected petitions filed by the same petitioner. Writ Petition No. 29060 of 1993 was filed challenging the order dated 06.07.1993 passed by the Manager of the institution terminating his services. Writ Petition No. 1488 of 2006 claiming regularisation under Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act and Rule 17 of 1998 Rules. Facts as they emerge out from the pleadings of the parties are that a post of Lecturer (Economics) fell vacant in an institution, namely, National Inter College, Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, which is a duly recognised and aided institution on 30th June, 1987 due to superannuation of the incumbent, Lal Bihari Srivastava. The petitioner asserts that the vacancy was requisitioned and since the Commission failed to recommend any candidate, the committee of management decided the fill in the vacancy by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, an advertisement was published, in pursuance whereof the petitioner applied and appeared for interview and was selected and appointed vide appointment order dated 20.02.1992 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The papers pertaining to selection and appointment were duly forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval along with a covering letter dated 02.03.1992. In pursuance to the appointment letter issued by the committee of management, petitioner claims to have joined the post on 21.02.1992 and started functioning. However, when no payment of salary was made, he filed a Writ Petition No. 33184 of 1992 claiming salary. In the said writ petition, time was allowed to the State respondents to file counter affidavit and the matter is still pending. Subsequently, the Manager of the institution passed an order dated 06.07.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that District Inspector of Schools has not accorded approval to his appointment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Inspector of Schools, specially stating that the vacancy in question was never requisitioned and the appointment has been made by the Manager during the period when there was a ban imposed on an ad hoc appointment under the Government Order dated 30th July, 1991.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, an impleadment application was filed on behalf of one Ratan Lal Gupta and S.P. Verma claiming to be teachers in L.T. Grade in the same institution and asserting their right to ad hoc promotion before any direct recruitment could be made. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that vacancy was never requisitioned. It is further pleaded that proceedings for direct recruitment could only be resorted to in case no suitable candidate is available for such ad hoc promotion. A learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2010 dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that entire writ petition is completely silent about the availability of qualified teachers for ad hoc promotion on the post in question in the institution. Specially, qua their claim being not considered, inasmuch as appointment by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis can be resorted to only if a qualified teacher is not available in the institution for promotion on the post in question. However, Special Appeal No. 32 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench on the ground that a counter affidavit to the impleadment application has been filed by the petitioner and the averments made therein, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge, as such, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back for deciding the matter afresh.;