- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to accord approval of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as L. T. grade teacher in Chaubisa Kanya Inter College, Mohana, district Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution') and not to compel the institution to fill up the post by promotion.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the institution was running a Junior High School. It was upgraded to High School on 30th June, 1993. On upgradation of the institution as High School, Regional Inspectress of Girls School, 1st Region, Meerut, respondent No. 1, recommended to the Director of Education for creation of one post of Principal, two posts of L. T. grade teachers, eight posts of C. T. grade teachers and four posts of class IV emplo yees. THE Director of Education granted approval on 6th April, 1994, of one post of principal and two posts of L. T. grade teachers. THEse two posts were to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982 ). After the order of creation of posts, the Manager of the institution on 3-6- 1984 issued an agenda for the meeting of the Committee of Management and in its meeting on 5-8- 1984 passed a resolution for promoting Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav as L. T. grade teachers. THE papers for approval of their promotion were sent to the respondent No. 1 who accorded approval vide order dated 3-10-1984. Smt. Jai Shree respondent No. 3 made representa tion against such approval. THE respondent No. 1, however, reaffirmed the order of approval on 19-12-1984. Respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 109 of 1985 against these orders in this Court. THE writ petition was admitted but the stay application was finally rejected on August 25, 1987. After filing of the writ petition subsequent developments took place. One Smt. Savitri Yadav was promoted to post of Principal when the post of Principal was created by Director of Education on 6-4- 1984. On her promotion, the post of L. T. grade teacher fell vacant. One Smt. Anita Yadav was appointed as L. T. grade teacher. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 6th January, 1985 appointing him as ad had teacher in L. T. grade teacher with effect from 6th April, 3 984 as she had started working as L. T. grade teacher with effect from the said date. Smt. Anita Yadav, however, resigned from her post on 26th October, 1988 and one L. T. grade post which was held by her fell vacant. It appears that the papers regarding promotion of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav were sent to the Secretary, U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. The Deputy Secretary of the Commission vide letter dated 27-2-1989 intimated to respondent No. 1 and the Committee of Management of the institution that the papers which were sent for pro motion of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav and Sudmeda Yadav were examined and it was found that none of them could be promoted because the institution was upgraded as High School on 30-6-1983 and the post in question had fallen vacant on 1-5-1988 and they had not completed five years continuous teaching experience as a C. T. grade teacher in the High School, Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the aforesaid letter, directed the Committee of Management on 14-6-1989 to fill up the post fell vacant on account of resignation of Smt. Anita Yadav by direct recruitment. The Management, in pursuance of the said letter preceded to make ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982.
(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as ad hoc L. T. grade teacher and she was issued an appointment letter on 27-6-1989. THE Manager sent the papers to respondent No. 1 for according financial approval. Smt. Jai Shree Yadav, on coming to know of the appointment of the petitioner, made a represen tation on 6- 11-1989 to respondent No. 1, claiming that she was entitled for pro motion to the post in question. Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 12-2-1990 to the Management, respondent No. 2, asking for explanation to the application moved by respondent No. 3, claiming her right of promotion on the post of L. T. grade teacher in the institution. THE management sub mitted a reply that ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment was made on the basis of the letter dated 14-6-1989. Respondent No. 1 by her letter dated 19-9-1990 wrote to the Manager to promote respondent No. 3 as she was entitled for promotion on the basis of 4 per cent quota of promotion of the teachers working in the institution. THE Committee of Management passed a resolution on 4-11-199j for promotion of respondent No. 3 as L T. grade teacher and sent the papers to Commission through respondent No. 1 for approval. THE petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 for according approval. A copy of the represen tation of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. THE question is as to whether the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment should have been made or the post should have been iiiled by promotion. I have heard Sri T. N. Govil, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Jain Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3 at length.;