- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and they agree that the petition may be disposed off finally under the rules of the Court. Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 22. 9. 1993 by which the District Inspector of Schools has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer in English. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as lecturer in English. Brief facts, as are evident from the record, is that there is a Intermediate College known as Rana Sangram Singh Inter College, Bishara, District Ghaziabad which is a duly recognized and aided institution imparting education up to intermediate classes. An English Lecturer, Sri Chandra Pal Singh retired from service on 30. 6. 1990 causing a substantive vacancy on the post. As there was no qualified person to be appointed by promotion, the management vide letter dated 22-8-1990 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools informed him about the vacancy and also asked him to forward relevant requisition to the Commission. It was also stated in the letter as there was no qualified person, the said post should be filled up by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis. Whereafter, after following due process, the petitioner was selected and an appointment letter dated 10. 1. 1993 was issued to him in pursuance of which, he joined the institution and is working till date. As the salary was not being paid, he filed the present writ petition and during the pendency of the petition, the impugned order was passed whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on various grounds. This order dated 22. 9. 1993 has been challenged subsequently by an amendment which was allowed. Another writ petition being writ petition No. 40432 of 1993 was filed by one Dev Raj Sharma claiming the relief for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner in the Lecturer Grade in English as he claimed that he was fully qualified to be promoted. Both these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed off together.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools and so also on behalf of Dev Raj Sharma. The stand taken in the counter affidavit of District Inspector of Schools is that there were ten sanctioned posts in the institution of which two posts were declared surplus, therefore, only eight sanctioned posts of lecturer were in the institution. Since two lecturers were being granted salary under the order of this Court, there was no sanctioned post on which the petitioner could have been appointed. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the management did not have power to make any appointment on ad hoc basis in view of the aforesaid fact and that is why requisition was not sent to the Commission. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Sri Dev Raj Sharma, it has been stated that the management did not have any power to make an ad hoc appointment directly as the vacancy was not published in daily newspapers and in fact he was qualified to be promoted on the said post as the post was for promotional quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that Sri Dev Raj Sharma was not qualified on the date of vacancy or on the date when the management decided to fill the post by direct appointment on ad hoc basis. However, learned counsel for Sri Sharma has urged that he was eligible on the date of appointment and as such his claim could not be brushed aside without considering it. However, Sri Sharma does not dispute that on the date of vacancy i. e. 30-6-1990 he neither had five years continuous service in L. T. Grade nor he was M. A. in English. From the record, it appears that Sri Sharma was working in the L. T. Grade with effect from 1-1-1986 and he passed his M. A. English examination in 1991 and though the management had sent a letter dated 22-8-1990 to the District Inspector of Schools for direct appointment, the appoint itself was made in January, 1993. Thus it has to be seen as to which is the relevant date on which the eligibility for promotion has to be considered.;