VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.1.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Kushi Nagar, respondent No. 1, whereby the financial approval for the appointment of the petitioner has been refused.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that a short -term vacancy in L.T. grade arose on 6.7.1997 due to the ad hoc promotion on one Bhagwati Misra on the post of Hindi Lecturer in Nehru Intermediate College Semari -Sukrauli district Kushl Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the respondent -institution). On the very next day, i.e., 7.7.1997. It is alleged that the vacancy was notified on the notice -board of the respondent institution and allegedly an intimation was also sent to the District Inspector of Schools. It has also been stated that the said vacancy was also advertised in a local newspaper 'Deoria Doot' on 11.7.1997. Thereafter the selection is said to have been held on 17.8.1997 in accordance with the provisions of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The petitioner claims to have got the maximum quality point marks and was thus recommended by the management for appointment. The resolution of the Committee of Management recommending the appointment of the petitioner is said to have been passed on 27.8.1997 and the papers forwarded to the office of the District Inspector of Schools for approval, which were received on 29.9.1997. Since the approval was neither accorded nor refused by the District Inspector of Schools within seven days, the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as a L.T. grade teacher on 14.10.1997 under the provisions of Clause 2 (iv) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. It has further been stated that the petitioner joined his duties on 14.10.1997 itself. Since the District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 8.1.1998, had refused to grant financial sanction to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. I have heard Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State -respondents and Sri S. P. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Committee of Management and have also perused the record.
(3.) IN this case two questions arise for decision of this Court, namely : (i) whether the Committee of Management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment on short -term vacancy after the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ; and (ii) whether the appointment of the petitioner was validly made in accordance with law.;