B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) Vacancy arose against the post of lecturer in History in the Rashtriya Inter College, Sujanganj, district Jaunpur on 30th June, 1983. The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were both teachers in the L.T. grade in this Institution. There is no dispute any longer that both of them are M.A. in History. The result relating to the respondent no. 4 was declared a little later on 2nd September, 1983 while the result in relation to the petitioner came to be declared earlier but that is of no consequence whatever since the declaration of the result dates back to the examination to which this pertains. On 31st August, 1983 the Committee of Management decided to give ad-hoc appointment on the post to the petitioner. This decision has been reversed by the Deputy Director of Education on reference made to him. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Learned counsel in support of the petitioner's case contends:- (i) he was a teacher earlier in another institution and taking that period into consideration he should be reckoned senior in comparison to the respondent no. 4, (ii) the petitioner is qualified to teacher Hindi also besides History, (iii) the petitioner has had experience in teaching History but not the respondent. The criteria for making the ad-hoc appointment as appears from rule 9 (1) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. The seniority to be taken into account is the seniority in the institution concerned. In so far as the particular institution is concerned, the respondent and not the petitioner is senior. The respondent being M.A. in History possessed requisite qualification to teach the subject as Lecturer. It is not quite relevant that the petitioner is qualified in Hindi as well for the subject for which the vacancy had arisen is History and not Hindi. For the purposes of computing the seniority for ad-hoc appointment the period during which the petitioner claims to have served in another institution is not to be taken into account. The Committee of Management does not say that the respondent was unfit and therefore, he had to be rejected on this score. The consideration upon which the respondent no. 1 has reversed the ad-hoc appointment given by the Committee of Management may not be claimed on the face to be irrelevant or extraneous otherwise. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the criteria adopted for ad-hoc appointment by the management under Section 18 of the U.P. Act 5 of 1982 may be the same as that prescribed for the Commission the idea being to fill in the post by way of stop gap arrangement till the commission's candidate comes over.
(3.) For the reason Stated above the interim order dated 24th July, 1985 has to be vacated. The vacancy having arisen more than two years back it is desirable that the Commission proceeds expeditiously in the matter and makes its recommendation in the matter without further delay.;