- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Sri Sangam Lal Dubey-petitioner No. 2 who appeared in person as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 24-9-1994 indicates that the petitioner has been found to be senior to Sri Gulab Dhar Upadhyaya and he has also been held to be possessed of minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of lecturer in History by promotion. The petitioner, it is alleged, was given ad hoc promotion w. e. f. 1-7-1994 to the post of Lecturer in History pursuant to resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 26-6-1994. The papers pertaining to his ad hoc promotion were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad for approval vide letter dated 1-7-1994. The vacancy against which he was given ad hoc pro motion occurred due to retirement of the incumbent Sri Kripa Shanker Misra. The District Inspector of Schools, has, by means of the order im pugned in the writ petition, declined to accord approval on the ground that after 7-8-1993 the management ceased to have any power to make ad hoc promotion. It may be recalled that U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 was enforced with effect from 7- 8-1993 vide Notification Shiksha Anubhag-7 No. 357i/ XV-7-l- (262)-91, dated August 7, 1993 published in the U. P. Gazet Extra ordinary Part IV Section Ka, dated 7-8-1993. By means of the said U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, Section 16 of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1982 was substituted and according to the section as it stands substituted by Section 11 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 any ad hoc appointment under Section 10 has become impermissible after 7-8-1993. The recent Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 has, however, held that despite inforcement of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, ad hoc appointments, whether by direct recruitment or promotion, against substantive vacancy is permissible under the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether ad hoc promotion of the petitioner to the post of lecturer in History has been made by the Committee of Management in accordance with Para 4 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Com mission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, of course read with the provi sions of Rule 9-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 as inserted by means of the Notification No. 3440/15-7-2 (6)/92, dated 16th July, 1992 and these of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reser vation for Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and Backward Class) Act, 1994, (U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 ). Educational Institutions receiving grants from State Government come within the purview of the said Act No. 4 of 1994 as would be evident from the definition of the term 'public Services' as given in the Act, which would be attracted irrespective of whether the appointment is ad hoc or permanent in nature. The provisions, in my opinion, have to be kept in mind by the District Inspector of Schools, while deciding the matter afresh in the light of this judgment. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 24-9-1994 in so far as it maintains that the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to make ad hoc promotion after 7-8-1993 is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the question of the validity of the petitioner's ad hoc promotion in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment, expeditiously, if possible within a period of three monthe from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the said authority. Petition allowed. .;