ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant.
(2.) BY this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 5th November, 2003 passed by the learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14962 of 1988 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant claimed to be appointed on ad hoc basis in C.T. grade in the substantive vacancy by the committee of management of Adarsh Inter College, Aunti Gauri, Azamgarh. After making ad hoc appointment of the appellant in C.T. Grade the committee of management forwarded all the papers for approval of the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 27 -4 -1988. The District Inspector of Schools then passed the order dated 11 -7 -1988 refusing to approve the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the ad hoc appointment was required to be made in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 but the process of selection was adopted by the committee of management hence the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved. The petitioner challenging the said order dated 11 -7 -1988 filed the writ petition in this Court in which interim order was granted by this Court. The writ petition came for hearing before the Court and it was dismissed on 5 -11 -2003. The learned Judge of this Court observed in his judgment that the appointment of the appellant was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that the even a C.T. grade teacher could be appointed on ad hoc basis only after following the procedure of appointment under paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Challenging the said order dated 5 -11 -2003 Dr. R.G. Padia, counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant's case is fully covered by the provisions of Section 33 -A (1 -C) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the appellant is entitled for being given regular appointment by virtue of the said provision; hence the learned Single Judge of this Court committed error in rejecting the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1999 (All.) Smt. Shashi Saxena and others v. Deputy Director of Education and others, and 2000(2) LBESR 462 (All) : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 (All.), District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others v. Diwakar Lal and others. He also relied on the judgment of the apex Court reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 677, Karnataka State Private College Stop -Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others. The thrust of the submission of Dr. R.G. Padia is that the appellant is fully entitled by the aforesaid provisions of Section 33 -A (1 -C) and he is entitled for regularisation and the learned Judge has wrongly rejected the writ petition. The provision for regularisation was to regularise every ad hoc appointment whether it was legal or illegal and since the case of the appellant in covered under Section 33 -A, the question as to whether his appointment is valid or not cannot be gone into. We have considered the submissions of Dr. R.G. Padia, counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
(3.) ON perusal of the writ petition it is clear that the appointment of the appellant was disapproved on the ground that the appellant's appointment on ad hoc basis has been made without following the procedure of appointment under paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The power to hold the selection for ad hoc appointment is given to the District Inspector of Schools and since the committee of management has made ad hoc appointment of the petitioner hence the ad hoc appointment of the appellant cannot be approved. Dr. Padia elaborating his submission said that the Regularisation Rule i.e. Section 33 -A (1 -C) only refers Rule 2 of the 1981 Order and do not refer to other rules hence only thing which was to be seen was as to whether the appointment was under Rule 2 or not. The main issue in the writ petition was as to whether the appellant was validly appointed or not. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on 11 -7 -1988. Challenging the order dated 11 -7 -1988 of the District Inspector of Schools Dr. R. G. Padia submitted that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of law. The provision of Section 33 -A was enacted for giving regular appointment to certain ad hoc appointees in substantive capacity who fulfil the conditions mentioned therein. Every teacher referred to in the provision appointed on ad hoc basis will be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment. The submission that has been raised by Sri Padia that the ad hoc appointment of the appellant was illegal or legal is not to be considered in the writ petition, cannot be accepted.;