- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by an order dated 22-12-1994 issued by the Manager Manohar Bhushan Intermediate College, Bareilly complying with the direction of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19- 12-1994 and 14-11-1994 whereunder intimating that it was no longer possible to continue the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade he was required to hand over charge of his office, the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the aforesaid orders. He has also prayed that the order dated 30-6-1994 ravening Sri R. D. Peeyush from the post of Lecturer to the post of Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade be also quashed and the respondent-authorities be required not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in the institution till the regular selection is made filling up the vacancy in the Lecturer's grade. It appears from the record that a substantive vacancy in the post of Lecturer in the institution had occurred on 30-6-1986. The management had after following the procedure prescribed appointed Sri R. O. Peeyush, an Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade employed in the institution, as against the said vacancy granting him the promotion which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 29-1- 1990. The resolution regarding the promotion of Sri R. D. Peeyush had been passed on 6-11-1989. It further appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade on 10-8- 1991 on ad hoc basis in the resultant vacancy in the L. T. Grade which was caused on account of the promotion of Sri R. D. Peeyush. In the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner it had been specifically mentioned that the appointment which was being offered to him was purely on ad hoc basis and would continue only up to the date a properly selected candidate is provided by the Commission vide Sri R. D. Peeyush. It was also clearly mentioned in the appointment order that the said appointment was subject to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly.
(3.) FROM the materials placed on record it transpires that Sri R. D. Peeyush who had been grafted the ad hoc promotion in the Lecturer's grade as against the substantive vacancy which had come into existence on 30-6-1986 was not interested in continuing as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis and had requested the management to revert him to his substantive post of Assis tant Teacher in the L. T. Grade, This request of Sri R. D. Peeyush was accepted by the Committee of Management vide its resolution No, 6 dated 30- 6-1994. Under this resolution while reverting Sri R. D. Peeyush on the substantive post of Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade certain penalties had also been imposed upon him requiring him to refund the excess salary which was received by him on account of his being promoted as a Lecturer which he would not have received had he continued in the next below grade. In the aforesaid resolution the Committee of Management had also directed that the petitioner will continue as an Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade vice Sri Anand Swarup Saxena another Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade who had retired on 30- 7-1994 giving rise to a substantive vacancy in. a post of Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools did not approve of the diversion of the petitioner to another vacancy which had occurred on 30-6-1994. This was communicated to the Management vide the letter dated 14-11-1994. While disapproving this diversion, the District Inspector of Schools required that the services of the petitioner be terminated as he ceased to have any right to hold the post on account of the reversion of Sri R. D Peeyush inasmuch as the resultant vacancy which had come into existence on account of the promotion of Sri R. D. Peeyush had ceased to continue with the reversion of Sri R. D. Peeyush and his joining his substan tive post in the next below grade. It may be noticed that the petitioner had been granted the appoint ment on ad hoc basis as against the resultant vacancy in the L. T. Grade which had occurred in the circumstances indicated hereinabove taking recourse to the method prescribed for direct recruitment. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15266 of 1992 filed by the petitioner a copy of the letter dated 10-8-1991 issued by the Manager of the College to the District Inspector of Schools has been placed on record which indicates that in order to fill up the resultant vacancy in question, a notice dated 30-7-1991 had been passed on the notice board inviting applications for appointment. In the aforesaid letter the management bad not indicated that any notice was published in any news paper as required under the Difficulties Removal Order issued under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Board Act, 1981. In the aforesaid letter it had also been indicated that only three persons had applied for appointment on the post out of which the petitioner was found most suitable. In this connec tion it may further be noticed that the question relating to the procedure which was to be followed while making an ad hoc appointment as against short term vacancies was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in its deci sion in the case of Kumuri Radha Raizada v. C. M. Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College repotted in 1994 ACJ 641. The Full Bench after considering various aspects has observed that the advertisement of short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution is in fact no notice to the prospective eligible candidates as no prospective candidate is expected to visit each insti tution to see the notice board for finding out whether any short term vacancy has been advertised. It was also observed that since the payment of salary to the teachers appointed against the short term vacancy is the liability of the State Government the advertisement of short term vacancy must con form to the requirement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution which prohibits the State from doing anything whether by making rule or by executive order which would deny equal opportunity to all the citizens. The Full Bench went on to observe that the provisions contained in sub-paragraph (3) of para graph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order which provides that the short term vacancy shall be notified on the notice board of the institution, does not give equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates of the District, Region or the State to apply for consideration for the appointment against the said short term vacancy. This Court indicated that such kind of notice is on eye-wash for the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the Full Bench held that the procedure for notify the short term vacancy should be the same as it is for the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The management after intimating such vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools has to adver tise the vacancy at least in two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh in addition to notifying the said vacancy on the notice board of the Institution and further the applications may also be invited from the local employment exchange. The procedure provided for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Thereafter the Full Bench went on to observe, that the procedure provided in sub-paragraph (3) (i, ii, iii, iv) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed for making such appointment. Under the procedure provided under sub-para graph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the selection is required to be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The names and particulars of the candidates so selected and other candidates along with quality point mark allotted to them are required to be forwarded by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools seeking prior approval. The Full Bench also observed that the duration of such ad hoc appointment is till the teacher who was on leave or under suspension joins the post or when the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist.;