B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U. P. Act 5 of 1982) was enacted inter alia with the following object : " THE appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of teachers under the provisions of the said Act and the regulations was sometimes not free and fair. Besides, the field of selection was also very much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was, therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission at the State Level, to select Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and L. T. Grade teachers, and Secondary Education Selection Boards at the regional level, to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in " C. T./J. T. C./B. T. C. grades for such institutions "
(2.) THE Act came into force on July 14, 1981. Under the scheme of the Act, the appointment of the Principal of an Intermediate College, Lecturer of an Intermediate College, Headmaster of a High School, trained grade teachers of Higher Secondary School, cannot be made except on the recommendation of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). Likewise the appointment of a teacher of categories other than the above mentioned can be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Secondary Education Selection Board (for short, the Board) vide Section 16. To this General Rule there is exception provided in Section 18 which reads as under :- " 18. Ad hoc Teachers.-(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification ; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. (2) THE provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher other than a teacher specified in the Schedule on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression ' Board' for the expression 'Commission'. (3) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post ; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires ; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment " In exercise of powers reserved under Section 33 of the Act the State Government issued on July 31, 1981 U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. This was followed by other Removal of Difficulties Orders with the details whereof we are not concerned in the present. Suffice it may to note that the management is given the power to appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. Such appointment is to cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board as the case may be, joins the post. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Commission constituted under the Act is by and large unable to recommend any suitable candidate for appointment within the period contemplated u/Sec. 18 (1) (a). The Board has not even been constituted till date. In consequence the management has had to fall back extensively upon ad hoc appointment u/Sec. 18 (1) in order to fill in the vacancies. In view of Section 10 of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act 24 of 1971) the State Government is under obligation to pay salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after March 31, 1971, though the Government may no doubt recover any such amount by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the institution. The District Inspectors of Schools have in general, it has been noticed, declined recommendation for purposes of the payment of salary to ad hoc teachers for the period beyond June 30, immediately following the ad hoc appointment. The ad hoc teachers continued in service as a result, in view of the appointment given to them by the management but with the salary denied for no fault on their part. The docket of the Court which is full already, is being over-loaded with writ petitions on this score day in and day out. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is representative in character being filed by the U. P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, for and on behalf of the ad hoc teachers. The theme is the same as we come across other petitions filed on the subject by certain teachers in their individual capacity. The Sangh asserts moreover that ad hoc teachers in large number find it difficult to approach the Court for appropriate relief. The Court has successively given its decisions also on the point, which have remained unattended to save perhaps in relation to the parties specifically arrayed in particular cases. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the circumstances is : To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the salaries of all ad hoc teachers appointed u/Sec. 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, who are continuing after 30th of June, 1986 and after 30th of June of the other following years and whose services have not been terminated and no fresh appointee from the Commission has joined on the post held by them, the opposite parties shall pay their salaries and arrears of salaries and continue to pay the same ".
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent proceed to dispose of the petition finally at this stage. The question is whether even though the service of the teacher initially appointed u/Sec. 18 of the Act has not been terminated in accordance with law and the Commission has not recommended the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher, the management is not to be deemed to have renewed the ad hoc appointment of the teacher on the expiry of June 30 immediately following the date of such appointment. This is not res-integra. This court has in no uncertain terms and authoritatively pronounced its verdict on the issue in a series of decisions each by a Division Bench and with remarkable degree of unanimity viz. : (1) Committee of Management, Sanatan Dharam Intermediate College, Daulatpur, distt. Mainpuri v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, 1985 Ed. Cases 322 (2) Shiva Chandra Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 AWC 429 (3) Ramji Pathak v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 UP LB EC 344 (4) Narendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, 1986 AWC 768 (5) Murli Prasad v. State of U. P. etc., 1986 UP LB EC 274.;