Narain Dutt Ojha, J. - (1.) The Petitioner was a candidate for the post of Principal of the Dayanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thaur, Jauspur. The selection was to be made by the Commission constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the -Act). The Petitioner, however, was not selected. Aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had already been selected as Principal of the College by its Committee of Management in the year 1976 and consequently there was no question of making any selection or appointment to that post no. Suffice is to say so far as this submission is concerned that no material has been brought to our notice from the record of the writ petition indicating that the post of Principal was at any time advertised in the year 1976 inviting applications, that any selection committer was constituted which considered the case of the applicants who may have applied 'or the said post and that the petitioner was ultimately selected by the selection Committee As such, it cannot be said that the Petitioner had already been selected and appointed as Principal in accordance with relevant rules applicable in l976.
(3.) It was then contended that the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal of the College stood regularized in view of paragraph 5 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 (U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985). A perusal of paragraph 5 of the said Ordinance indicates that it applies to such a person who has been appointed by direct recruitment under paragraph 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of this submission placed reliance on copy of order dated 16th July 1982 passed by the District Inspector of Schools attached as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. This indicates that the ad -hoc appointment of the Petitioner was made not by direct recruitment but by promotion. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner is obviously not entitled even for the benefit of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance.;