ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order 28/29 -11 -2000 (Annexure 1) to the writ petition passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar rejecting the claim of the petitioner of ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer (Maths). Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are, Inter College, Surajawali, Salempur, Bulandshahar is aided and recognised Intermediate College. Principal of the Institution Shri Shekhar Saran Sharma retired on 30 -6 -1998 causing vacancy on the post of Principal. Senior most teacher Nand Kishore Mittal was given ad hoc appointment as Principal. On account of ad hoc promotion of Nand Kishore Mittal, a short term vacancy arose in the lecturers grade. Advertisement was published in two daily newspaper 'Dainik Jargan' and 'Amar Ujala' inviting application for ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer. Petitioner applied for ad hoc appointment. Petitioner was recommended for ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer (Maths). An appointment letter dated 16 -12 -1998 was also given to the petitioner. The committee of management forwarded papers pertaining to appointment of the petitioner for approval to the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 12 -1 -1999. District Inspector of Schools did not take any decision. The writ petition No. 43517 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11 -10 -1999 directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 11 -10 -1999, the District Inspector of Schools has passed an order dated 28/29 -11 -2000 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the said order passed by District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the case of the petitioner on the following three specific grounds: (i) after the circular dated 9 -6 -1995, the appointment of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, the power of Management to make ad hoc appointment has come to an end. (ii) the appointment letter which was sent alongwith the papers is faulty, since the appointment of petitioner on ad hoc basis has been made till selection on the post of Principal by the Commissioner. (iii) provision of reservation has not been considered while making ad hoc appointment.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools raised following submissions: (1) The Committee of Management was fully empowered to make appointment on short term vacancies in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. The power of the management has not been taken away to make ad hoc appointment on short term vacancy. The said Difficulties Order is still continuing as laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management and others. (2) The Counsel for the petitioner has stated that ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was till return of Nand Kishore Mittal on his post of Lecturer. He contended that the intention in the letter was that till Shri Mittal returns after regular selection on the post of Principal petitioner will continue. (3) The provisions of reservations are not applicable with regard to appointment of short term vacancies. Reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court reported in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1621, Smt. Pratima Chauhan and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik) and others. Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the District Inspector of Schools in his order has observed that Management is not aware of the rules and regulation and appointment has been made illegally. He further contended that appointment was given to the petitioner before the approval, hence, the appointment is void in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. The learned Standing Counsel has further stated that appointment of the petitioner till selection of the post of Principal was erroneous. Petitioner has no right to continue till selection of the post of Principal. ;