A.N. Varma, S.K. Dhaon, JJ. - (1.) Having heared learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no merit in this petition. The appointment of the petitioner was made under Section 18 of U.P. Act. No. 5 of 1982. Meanwhile the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission aN.S.lection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 was promulgated with effect from 12th June, 1985 which made provision for absorption of reserved teachers against the posts which were to be filled by direct recruitment. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was entitled to continue till a candidate was appointed to the post in question, through the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission under U.P. Act. No. 5 of 1982 and inasmuch as no Such appointment has been made so far, the petitioner was entitled to continue. We are unable to agree with this contention. Under Section 21-B it is provided that "where and Substantive vacancy in the post of a teacher in an institution is to be filled by direct recruitment, such post shall at the instance of the Inspector be offered .by the Management to a teacher other than a teacher referred to in Sub-section (2), whose name is entered in the register referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 21-B. In this case one Thakur Prasad Singh has been appointed under Chapter IV-A of U.P. Act. No. 5 of 1982 as amended by the aforesaid Ordinance. In our opinion the appointment validly made under Chapter IV-A cannot be held in abeyance on the ground that the post has not been filled through the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission under Section 16 of the Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 21-B provides that no appointment of any teacher to an institution shall be made under Section 16 until the list of reserve pool teachers of that district in the subject concerned is exhausted in accordance with Sub-section (5). It is, thus, apparent that a post can also be filled up otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 consistently with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the aforesaid Act. That being So, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner came to an end, on the appointment of a teacher under Chapter IV-A from out of the reserve pool of teachers. There are, thus, no merits in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
(2.) As regards the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to salary at least for the period upto 26th August, 1985 when Thakur Prasad Singh joined the post, the petitioner may make a representation in that behalf before the District Inspector of Schools, who may pass appropriate orders for payment of salary of the petitioner expeditiously. Petition dismissed.;