- (1.) A. Chakrabarti, J. The order dated 6-7-1995 disapproving the exten sion of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from 19-4-1990 was challenged by this writ petition. The background of the case, as available from the writ petition, is that the short term vacancy on medical leave of Smt. L. R. Mishra was filled up by the petitioner upon his selection following an advertisement. The appointment of the petitioner was by letter dated 1-1-1990 in the post of Lecturer in Economics. The respondent No. 5, an Assistant Teacher in JTC grade, appointed on 31-1-1973 was granted pro motion in CT grade with effect from 31-1-1978 and became entitled to LT grade after ten years with effect from 1-2-1988 on completion of ten years of service in CT grade. The respondent No. 5 moved writ petition No. 10393 of 1994 challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing the claim of the respondent No. 5 for her pay fixation in L. T. grade with effect from l-l-19b6. As the respondent No. 5 did not possess the requisite qualifi cation for LT grade, the petitioner moved an impleadment application in the said writ petition and got herself impleaded on 4-10-1994. The respondent No S moved another writ petition challenging the ad hoc appointment of the peti tioner which was disposed of ex parte on 7-2-1990 with the observation that the respondent No. 5 had an alternative remedy. The respondent No. 5 wrongfully availed ot the said alternative remedy. Upon the death of Smt. L. R. Mishra a short term vacancy, wherein the petitioner was appointed, was converted into a permanent vacancy and the same was notified to the Com mission. Upon conversion of leave vacancy into a substantive one, the peti tioner became entitled to continue on ad hoc basis till a candidate recommended by the Commission joined the post. The respondent No. S made a claim for her promotion in the said substantive vacancy and her representation was allowed by order dated 27-6-1990 on a representation by the institution putting forward the relevant facts. The Deputy Director of Education by order dated 21-7-1990 upheld the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner. Same was challenged by the respondent No. 5 in writ petitioner No. 19052 of 1990 wherein an ex parte stay order was obtained. The petitioner was put into a precarious position and preferred a writ petition No. 17217 of 1992 for pay ment of her salary with effect from 22- 1-1990 whereupon an ad interim I mandamus was issued. The writ petition No. 19052/90 and writ petition , No. 1721v/92 were considered for admission whereupon the writ petition j No. 19052 of 1990 was allowed as no opportunity it was granted for hearing the respondent No. 5 and the matter was remanded. In writ petition No. 17217 of 1992 direction for payment of salary was made. Special Appeal No. 193 of 1993 filed by the respondent No. 5 against the interim order for payment of salary to the petitioner, was ultimately dismissed by order dated 2-2-1995. The appeal by the petitioner against the order passed in writ petition No. 19052 of 1990 was also dismissed. The Deputy Director of Education by order dated 6-7-1995 disapproved the extension of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner and held the respondent No. 5 to be entitled for promotion in the post of Lecturer (Economics ). This order was challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE respondents contested the proceeding and filed counter affidavit disclosing various materials. THE petitioner filed her rejoinder affidavit as also a supplementary affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission as affidavit have been exchanged. Upon hearing the respective parties and perusing the materials on record I find that more or less the facts are admitted. The main question for decision is as to whether substantive vacancy in the post of Lecturer (Econo mics) was to be filled up by the petitioner or by the respondent No. 5.
(3.) ON the date the vacancy originally arose it was a short term vacancy by reason of leave obtained by the then incumbent, the petitioner was appointed ON the said date namely 1-7-1989 the respondent No. 5 was not qualified nor she made any claim for her promotion as the post could not be filed up by promotion, The petitioner was appointed after following the selection process upon advertisement. Appointment letter was issued and the peti tioner joined the post on 22-1-1990 and thereafter worked continuously. Upon the death of Smt. L R. Mishra, the earlier incumbent, the said vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy on 19-4-1990. At this stage the claim of the respondent No. 5 arose and various proceedings between the parties came to be there. Parties made various contentions in support of their own respective claim as also against the respective opponents. The impugned order decided the matter in terms of the direction of this Court and by the said order the claim of the petitioner was rejected and that of respondent No. 5 was allowed. 6 The law referred to by the parties, including the case of Km. Meena Singh v. D. I. O. S. , 1992 (3), AWC 1733; Virendra Kumar Singh v. D. I. O. S. , 1989 (2) UPLBEC 607, and some unreported decisions held that a teacher, appointed on ad hoc basis against a short terra vacancy, would be entitled' to continue even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive one till such time as a candidate selected by the Commission turns up to join. 7. In view of the above position in law upon conversion of the short term vacancy into a substantive one, the petitioner was entitled to continue in the post. The respondent No. 5 admittedly having no claim on the date of creation of the short term vacancy could not make a claim upon its conversion into a substantive one. As the petitioner was entitled to continue in the said post the question of consideration of claim of tha respondent No. 5 would have arisen for the purpose of filling up the substantive vacancy had it been really lying vacant. But, as the petitioner was already continuing there and under law she had and right to continue in the said post in spite of conversion, there was no question of considering the claim of respondent No. 5. There is no dispute that on the date of creation of short term vacancy the respondent No. 5 was not having any claim for promotion. Accordingly, 1 find that the peti tioner is entitled to continue in the said post until a candidate recommended by the Service Commission turns up to join and there is no question of sub stituting the ad hoc appointee-petitioner by another ad hoc appointee, the respondent No. 5 in the facts and circumstances of the case, 8. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 6-7-1995 is hereby set-aside. The petitioner will be entitled to continue as ad hoc Lecturer (Economics) in Nagar Palika Balika Inter College, Kalpi District Jalaun at Orai. The respondents are directed to take appro priate steps in accordance with law as observed herein above. 9. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;