- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER had approached this Court earlier by means of the Writ Petition No. 16255 of 2004 alleging therein that he has been offered appointment against a short-term vacancy caused due to suspension of a teacher in the institution namely Sri Roop Narain Singh. It was claimed that such ad hoc appointment was offered on 17-8-1995. Papers for grant of financial approval had been transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools but he has not taken any decision. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22-4-2004 with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to consider the claim of the petitioner for financial approval in accordance with the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Radha Raizada. The District Inspector of Schools by means of the impugned order dated 9-11- 2004 has held that the appointment claimed by the petitioner is illegal and therefore, petitioner has no right to claim financial approval/payment of salary. This order of the District Inspector of Schools is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is not necessary for the Court to enter into the necessity of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice is to refer to bare essential facts which may decide the fate of the present writ petition. It is admitted to the petitioner that one Sri Roop Narain Singh, who was working as L. T. Grade Teacher In the Institution was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 25-7-1992. The vacancy, according to the petitioner, so caused was a short-term vacancy and therefore, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher after following the procedure prescribed on 20-9-1992. It has further been stated that Sri Roop Narain Singh was transferred on 30-5-1995 and therefore, a substantive vacancy has now become available against which the petitioner has become entitled for regularization.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools and in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the suspension of Sri Roop Narain Singh was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools and therefore, there was no short term vacancy available in the Institution against which the petitioner could have been appointed. Standing Counsel further clarifies that in case Sri Roop Narain Singh had been transferred on 30-5- 1995, a substantive vacancy can be said to have been caused in the institution substantively on 30-5- 1995 itself and said substantive vacancy is required to be filled in accordance with the procedure then applicable for ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy, which has not been done.;