- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Shri Vikash Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pradeep Verma appearing for the respondent.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22/23-1-2004 passed by District Inspector of Schools rejecting the claim of the petitioner for approval as Ad hoc Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in a recognised institution. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the Colonelganj Inter College, Allahabad is a recognised Institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Institution is also receiving the grant- in-aid and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. There were two substantive vacancies in L. T. grade. One vacancy was caused due to retirement of D. S. Upadhyaya retired on 30-6-1988. Another vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Commerce) came into existence due to retirement of Shri R. K. Pandey which retirement took place in the year 1980. The Committee of Management made ad hoc appointment of the petitioners as L. T. grade teacher. Petitioners claimed to have been issued an appointment letter on 29-3-1993 as Assistant Teacher L. T. grade. The information of the selection was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners were also represented to the District Inspector of Schools for payment of salary in pursuance of a direction passed by this Court. The representation of the petitioners were rejected vide order dated 28-11- 1998. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order of District Inspector of Schools. This Court vide its order dated 13-8-2002 allowed the writ petition and took the view that amendment made in Section 18 by U. P. Act, 1993 were never enforced i. e. Section 18 of U. P. Act was not omitted at the relevant time. Hence, the order of District Inspector of Schools was quashed and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to consider the matter afresh. Consequent to direction of this Court dated 13-8-2002 District Inspector of Schools has considered again the claim of the petitioner and rejected. The District Inspector of Schools apart from other reason rejected the representation on the ground that in accordance with Section 18 of U. P. Act 5 of 1982 as amended on 14-7-1992 the ad hoc appointment on substantive vacancy is to be made by a selection committee as referred to Section 18 (9 ). The District Inspector of Schools held that the appointment of the petitioners were not made in accordance with Section 18. It was further held that advertisement was published only in one newspaper. Reference of Chapter II Regulation 20 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act was also made. It was further held that according to financial survey only 28 posts are said to be created where as College is claiming 31 posts. The order of District Inspector of Schools has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order contended that vacancy on which petitioners were given ad hoc appointment arose before 30-6-1988 and hence ad hoc appointment on those vacancy shall be made in accordance with the earlier rules and provisions of Section 18 as amended on 14-7- 1992 are not applicable.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court (1998) 9 SCC 223, B. L. Gupta & Anr. v. M. C. D. I have considered the submission of the parties and perused the record.;