- (1.) This Special Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 17 May 2013 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.10297 of 1994 that had been filed for quashing the orders dated 27 August 1993 and 15 February 1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun denying payment of salary to the writ petitioner for the reason that he had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (the 1982 Act), was dismissed.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this Special Appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to some necessary facts. The writ petitioner asserted that by an order dated 30 November 1992, the Deputy Director of Education had created a new post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Science/Mathematics in Beni Madho Tiwari Inter College, Jalaun (the College) which is a College recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (the 1921 Act). Subsequently, by an order dated 20 February 1993, the Deputy Director of Education converted the said post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Science/Mathematics to a post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Biology. The writ petitioner further asserted that by a communication dated 16 March 1993, the Committee of Management of the College submitted a requisition for filling up the aforesaid post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Biology to the District Inspector of Schools but as neither a regular appointment nor an ad hoc appointment was made, the Committee of Management on its own published a notice on the notice board of the College inviting applications for making a temporary appointment. The name of the petitioner was ultimately recommended by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Management of the College in its meeting held on 22 June 1993 granted ad hoc appointment to the writ petitioner till a regularly selected candidate sent by the Commission joined the post. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution of the Committee of Management of the College, an order dated 23 June 1993 was issued in favour of the writ petitioner granting ad hoc appointment and thereafter papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 5 July 1993 for granting approval to the payment of salary to the writ petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by a letter dated 27 August 1993 returned the papers with an observation that the appointment could only have been made under the amended provisions of Section 18 of the 1982 Act which had come into effect from 14 July 1992. On receiving the said communication from the District Inspector of Schools, the Management again sent a communication dated 31 January 1994 to the District Inspector of Schools pointing out that since no appointment had been made by the Commission nor by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management in the interest of the College as also the students made the ad hoc appointment of the writ petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools did not accept the plea of the Management and by order dated 15 February 1994 denied payment of salary for the reason that the writ petitioner had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the amended portion of Section 18 of the 1982 Act.
(3.) Initially, an interim order dated 13 January 1997 was passed by the Court in the writ petition that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the post on which he was working provided a duly selected candidate by the Commission had not already joined. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 17 May 2013. The learned judge, after placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada & Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College & Ors., 1994 3 UPLBEC 1551, held that since the appointment of the writ petitioner had not been made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (the First Order), the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools denying payment of salary was justified.;