R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) A notice, inviting applications for appointment to the post of a Sanskrit lecturer, in D.A.V. Inter College Firozabad (herein after referred to as the College), was issued in 1980 In this advertisement it was mentioned that the post is reserved for candidates of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, but if no such candidate is available the post can be filled in from candidates of Backward category. As there was no candidate of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe the name of the appellant, Sri Laiq Singh Yadav, who belongs to Backward class, was sent to Selection Committee, constituted under section 16-E of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for selecting candidate for appointment of Sanskrit lecturer In the College. The Selection Committee found Sri Yadav not suitable for the post and also not eligible being over age. The managing committee of College accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Thereafter no other candidate was selected by the Selection Committee.
(2.) STATE of U. P. enacted U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U. P Act no, 5 of 1982), which came into force on 14-7 -1981. Section 16 of this Act has laid down that no appointment of a teacher shall be made in any institution by the management of the College except on the recommendation of a candidate by the Commission. After July 14, 1981 all the appointments of teachers in Intermediate College have to be made by Committee of Management on the basis of selection by the Secondary Education Service Commission.. When U. P. Act no. 5 of 1V82 was in force the Deputy Director of Education, U. P. Allahabad, passed an order dated 22-4-1983 appointing Sri Laiq Singh Yadav, appellant, as lecture in Sanskrit in the College. In pursuance of the above order of the Deputy Director Sri Yadav has been appointed. Against (he above order of Deputy Director the petitioner-respondent, who was working as adhoc lecturer in Sanskrit in the College, filed a writ petition before this court. When petitioner-respondent filed writ petition he was granted interim stay order, which was latter on substituted by the following order, on 31-1-1984 : "Heard learned counsel for parties. The interim order dated 27-5-83 is vacated. However, it is made clear that the Principal of the institution shall take the work from the petitioner and respondent no. 4 treating them to be entitled to work in the lecturer's grade. However, neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 shall be entitled to the salary of lecturer's grade during the pendency of the writ petition. The person who is found entitled to the lecturer's grade at the time of final adjudication of the writ petition shall be entitled to get the difference in the salary between the lecturer's grade and the L.T. grade." It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that pursuent to the above order the petitioner-respondent has continued to work as Sanskrit lecturer in the College. Writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge on 17-5-1993 and order dated 22-4-1983, passed by. the Deputy Director of Education, was quashed. The order appointing appellant and cancelling appointment of petitioner-respondent, was also quashed. Respondents were also restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioner as Sanskrit lecturer in the College. Hence this appeal. The order dated 22-4-1983, passed by Deputy Director of Education, is absolutely without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained for the following reasons : (i) Sri Laiq Singh Yadav was not selected by the Selection Committee, constituted under section 16-E of the Act and management of the College has accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Sub-section (9) of Section 16-E of the Act, which is reproduced below, lays down the consequences when no candidate is approved by the Selection Committee : "Where no, candidate approved by the Selection Committee for appointment is available, fresh selection shall be held in the manner laid down in this section." In view of above provision a candidate who is not approved by the Selection Committee cannot be appointed unless fresh selection is held in accordance with section 16-E. In the Instant case no fresh selection was held after rejection of candidature of Sri Laiq Singh Yadav by the Selection Committee. No authority or official, as such, could have appointed Sri Yadav as Sanskrit lecturer in the College. (ii) Deputy Director of Education has no power under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder regarding appointment of lecturer in an Intermediate College A reference can be made to the Deputy Director of Education in case of appointment to the post of Head of the institution, when Committee of Management does not agree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. But in case of teacher even such reference cannot be made under sub section (8) of section 16-E of the Act. Even in the case of Head of of institution, if the Committee of Management has accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the question of reference to the Deputy Director does not arise. Deputy Director, as such, does not have the power to direct for appointment of Sri Yadav as Sanskrit lecturer in the college. (iii) After 14-7-1981, when the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 was enforced, no appointment can be made in any Intermediate College in the State, except on the recommendation of the Commission. In the instant case as Sri Laiq Singh Yadav was not selected by the Commission, he could not have been appointed. His appointment is contrary to the provisions of section 16 of the U. P. Act 5 of 1982. (iv) The maximum age for appointment of lecturer in Intermediate College is 32 years, which could be relaxed upto 40 years. On the date when appellant was interviewed by Selection Committee in January 1981 he was 41 years of age. He was, as such, over age and was not eligible to be appointed as lecturer even in 1981. The question of his appointment in 1983, as such, does not arise. (v) Petitioner-respondent no. 4 was promoted on 25-11-1981 by the Committee of Management of the College as adhoc lecturer under First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 issued under Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act. This promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It is true that, this appointment of the petitioner-respondent was for fixed period of six months in accordance with para 3 (b) of the above order, according to which Ad hoc appointment has to remain valid for six months, from the date of such appointment. This para was, however substituted by fresh para 3 of the Third Removal of Difficulties Order, 1952, which provided that every appointment of adhoc teacher shall cease to have the effect when the candidate, recommended by the Commission, joins the post. This Third Removal of Difficulties Order came into force on January 30, 1982 Petitioner respondent's appointment was made on 25-11-1981 for a period of six months and before this term of six months came to an end, para 3 was substituted by a new clause on 30-1-1982, with the result that petitioner-respondent's term stand extended till selection is made by the Commission As the petitioner-respondent was working as ad hoc lecturer in the College the Deputy Director should not have passed the impugned order, without giving him opportunity of hearing. Admittedly no such opportunity was given.
(3.) BEFORE parting with the case it may be observed that the argument of learned counsel for appellant that petitioner-respondent ho. 4 has no locus standi, is devoid of merit. Petitioner-respondent no.' 4 was working as Sanskrit lecturer in the College. He was removed from that post on account of impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The fact that his appointment was initially for a period of six months, is not relevant, because it stood extended, in view of the amendment introduced by Third Removal of Difficulties Order. The petitioner-respondent as such, was entitled to continue till candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. Learned Single Judge recorded finding that petitioner-respondent no 4 has been working as Sanskrit lecturer in the College and was, in fact, working, when the impugned order was passed and if that is so, he is very much aggrieved person. That apart, even if the appointment of petitioner-respondent no. 4 is not extended, he is eligible to be appointed and if respondent no. 4 has not been appointed by the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Eduction, he would have been promoted to that post, by virtue of seniority. From every point of view the petitioner-respondent no. 4 was the person aggrieved by the impugned order, passed by the. Deputy Director of Education. Learned Single Judge was fully justified to allow the writ petition. No exception can be taken to the judgment of learned Single Judge. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;