R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner who has approached to this Court in this petition to quash the order dated 21.8.1996 and 21.12.2000 (Annexures-11 and 12) whereby the petitioner's appointment was declared illegal for non-existence of regular post, without any selection and advertisement for the post of assistant teacher and for not possessing the qualification as required for assistant teacher and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents. It appears that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy which was available after the suspension of the assistant teacher Sri Nathuram Gupta, the petitioner was appointed and was allowed to join, but he was not given salary. Earlier the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1996, which was disposed of on 8.2.1996 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequent upon the petitioner's representation was considered and decided by a reasoned order dated 21.8.1996 by the D.I.O.S., Banda, respondent No. 2 by saying that the petitioner was only in possession of "Shastri" and no advertisement was published for recruitment of assistant teacher and the recruitment process was made on non-existence and there was no vacancy for appointment and the petitioner was not in possession of minimum qualification required under Regulation 1 Chapter 2 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act for appointment as assistant teacher in C.T. grade. Against this order dated 21.8.1996, petitioner preferred appeal before the Dy. Director of Education on 12.12.1996 which was not decided for a long period, therefore, the petitioner preferred a second Writ Petition No. 40662 of 1999, which too was disposed of on 22.9.1999 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months. In compliance thereto the petitioner's representation has been decided on 21.12.2000, incorporating the earlier view which was taken on 21.8.1996. Being aggrieved against both the orders the petitioner filed this writ petition. Since the records of Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1996 and writ petition No. 40662 of 1999 are not before me, however, the order dated 21.8.1996 cannot be challenged as subsequently petitioner has filed the appeal and that too was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education which are the impugned order. From the subject-matter of the Writ Petition No. 40662 of 1999, it appears, that the petitioner is abusing the process of law time and again. Prima facie, it appear that there was no post in existence, no advertisement was published as rules does not permit the petitioner to be appointed, the petitioner was not in possession of required qualifications and if he claims to have obtain the appointment de hors the rules, the appointment made de hors the rules shall not be effective and cannot be executed.
(2.) The Court deprecated the practice of making appointments on daily wages and held that even the appointment on daily wages without advertising the vacancy or calling the names from Employment Exchange violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence it is violative of the fundamental rights of other eligible persons and, thus, the relief of regularisation cannot be claimed.
(3.) The question of appointment de hors the Rules has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time and again and the Court held that such appointments are unenforceable and inexecutable, It is settled legal proposition that any appointment made de hors the Rules violates the Public Policy enshrined in the rules and, thus, being void, cannot be enforced. (Vide Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 138 ; Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahat v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyama Pardhi, (1996) 7 SCC 118 ; State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, 1997 (Supp) AWC 249 (SC) : (1997) 6 SCC 574 ; Patna University v. Dr. Amita Tiwari. AIR 1997 SC 3456 ; Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. S.S. Modh and Ors. 1998 (1) AWC 2.70 (SC) (NOC) : AIR 1997 SC 3464 ; Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 573 and Chancellor v. Shankar Rao and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 255).;