B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) WHETHER the principles of natural justice would apply even though not specifically provided under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Compendiously the Act) and under the provisions of Paragraph 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (Compendiously the first Removal of Difficulties Order, as amended by the provision of Paragraph 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1976, is a short question for determination. The present petition, under N 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner No. 1, a L.T. Grade teacher, who has been promoted as Lecturer in History on ad hoc basis in Suhawal Intermediate College, Ghazipur, to a vacancy which arose on account of one Shri Ram Harsh Rai, a lecturer in History, having attained age of superannuation on 30th of June, 1989. He was appointed an ad hoc lecturer under Section 11 of the Act, and in the vacancy caused by the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 was appointed in L.T. Grade. The relief sought in the petition is that the impugned order dated 11th of April, 1990, (Annexure '6') holding respondent No. 4, Ram Jatan Singh to be entitled for promotion in place of petitioner, be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that on the post of Lecturer vacancy arose on account of one Sri Ram Harsh Rai, lecturer in History, having attained the age of superannuation on 30 -6 -1989. There was no regularly selected candidate. Consequently, the management notified the vacancy to the Commission in view of the provision of the Act, but the appointment could not be made. Consequently in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act petitioner No. 1, who was M.A. in History, was promoted as Lecturer in History on ad hoc basis from amongst the Teachers in L.T. Grade possessing qualification prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The respondent No. 4, who was in L.T. Grade and was teaching Biology etc. made a representation which was referred to the Deputy Director of Education, under paragraph 7 of the first Removal of Difficulties Order, has been decided by the impugned order on the basis of Seniority as the respondent No. 4, who was teaching Science subject, has obtained M.A., decree in History, but without any information or notice to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G.K. Singh, urged that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor he was given any notice about the representation of respondent No. 4, nor he was heard before passing the impugned order. Consequently, the principles of natural justice have been violated.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 4, refuted the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and urged that under the circumstances of the case principles of Natural justice was just a technical point the petitioner suffered no lost on account of the fact that he was not served with any notice nor he was heard. Counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4. The paras. 20 to 23 of the petition stating that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not served with any notice nor he was heard has been replied in para. 5 of the counter -affidavit. It is to the effect that the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, was not against the principles of natural justice as the order was passed after inviting comments from the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner was not entitled to be promoted as Lecturer since he is junior to respondent No. 4. It was also urged that the petitioner has an alternative remedy inasmuch as against the order of Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner must have filed an appeal before the Director of Education in view of the provision of the amended provision of Para. 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981.;