- (1.) CYRIAC Joseph, C. J. This special appeal is filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2001 (S/s ). The appellants are the re spondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ pe tition. The respondent herein is the sec ond petitioner in the writ petition.
(2.) THE writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Science (LT Grade) in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Kathgodam. In the appointment letter, it was specifi cally stated that the appointment was on ad hoc basis and that the appoint ment could be terminated as and when a candidate selected by the Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) joined duty. It was also stated that the salary of the petitioner would be paid from the Parent Teacher Association Fund. THE said appointment of the pe titioner was never approved by any educational authorities. According to the petitioner, since such approval was not necessary, approval was not sought. However, the petitioner contin ued in service. When candidates were selected by the Board for regular ap pointment, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in the year 1996 claiming regularisation of his appointment and obtained an interim order staying the appointment of the candidate selected by the Board. " In view of the stay order, the candidate selected by the Board could not be appointed and the petitioner continued in service. During the pendency of the writ petition, Section 33-C was incorporated in the U. P Secondary Education (Serv ices Selection Board) Act, 1982 (here inafter referred to as the Act) with ef fect from 20- 04-1998. As per Section 33-C, any teacher who was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accord ance with Section 18, in the Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Grade, shall be given substantive appointment by the Management'. Admittedly, As sistant Teacher (LT Grade) and Trained Graduate Grade are one and the same. After coming into force of Section 33- " C, the petitioner amended the writ pe tition to claim regularisation of his ap pointment under Section 33-C of the Act. Order in the writ petition : "heard Sri S. N. Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order, as the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of section 33 C of the U. P Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 and arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioners as the peti tioners are teaching. " Pursuant to the said order of the Court, the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region considered the matter and passed an order dated 08-10-2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The claim was rejected on the ground that, for regularisation under Section 33-C, the ad hoc appointment should have been made in accordance with Section 18 of the above-mentioned Act, but the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 18. It was also stated in the order dated 08-10-2003 that the District inspector of Schools, Nainital had not approved the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner, for the reason that it was not in accord ance with Section 18. It was further stated that before making the appoint ment, the vacancy was not advertised in newspapers or names of candidates were not called for from the Employ ment Exchange. The petitioner again amended the writ petition for including a prayer to quash the said order dated 08-10-2003 of the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region. The writ petition was finally dis posed of by the Single Bench as per the judgment impugned in this Special Ap peal. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the claim of the petitioner was upheld and the objections raised by the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein) were overruled. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Special Ap peal has been filed.
(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the Management, but by the Manager and hence it was not in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. According to him, an ad hoc ap pointment under Section 18 of the Act ought to be made by the Management. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge. We are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge. THE word "management" is defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act. According to Section 2 (f), "management in relation to an institution means the committee of management or person or authority vested with the power- to manage and conduct the affairs of that institution". THE person vested with the power to manage and conduct the affairs of an' institution is called the Manager. THEre fore, the expression 'management' in cludes Manager also. As the petitioner was admittedly appointed by the Man ager of the institution, it cannot be said that his appointment was not in accord ance with Section 18. It is also to be noted that the Management, as such, cannot issue any order and that any decision or order of the Management has to be conveyed or issued by some one authorised to do so on behalf of the Management. In this case, the Man agement of the institution has not dis puted the right or competence of the Manager to make the appointment on behalf of the Management. Hence, we do not find any merit in the first con tention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appel lants then pointed out that one of the reasons stated by the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region for reject ing the claim of the writ petitioner was that before making the appointment, the vacancy was not advertised in newspapers or names of candidates were not called for from the Employ ment Exchange. Learned counsel con tended, that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 18 due to the said defect also. This point is not seen argued before the learned Single Judge. This contention is not raised in the appeal memoran dum also. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants is not entitled to raise this contention before this Court. Even othep. Wise, the learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any rule or Government Order which required, at the relevant time, that before mak ing any ad hoc appointment, the Man agement should advertise the vacancy in newspapers or call for names of can didates from the Employment Ex change. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.;