- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. After the retire ment of certain teachers of Deo Nagri De gree College, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the College) vacancies were notified to the U. P. Higher Education Ser vice Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), constituted under U. P. Higher Education Service Commis sion Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). As the Commission failed to recommend suitable candidate, the Col lege Management decided to appoint the teachers on ad hoc basis under Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly vacancies were notified by the Management and a Selec tion Committee was constituted for select ing the suitable teachers. Petitioner and others applied for the post of lecturer in the College and also appeared before the Selection Committee; but they were not found suitable and, therefore, they were not appointed as lecturers under Section 16 of the Act on ad hoc basis. However, the Management appointed the petitioner with effect from 15-10-1986. As a stop gap arrangement on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 700/- per month, which was accepted by him. The petitioner continued to work up to 21-3-1987. The Management again permitted the petitioner to work as part time lecturer with effect from 12-9-1988 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800/- per month. He continued to work up to 4-5-1989 when his service was again dispensed with by order dated 4-5-1989,,passed by the Principal of the College. Being aggrieved by it, he has filed this writ petition.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prin cipal of the College has no jurisdiction to terminate the service of the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed by the Management of the College. This submis sion, although attractive, cannot be ac cepted. Before the enforcement of the Act the appointment of teachers in Degree Colleges used to be made by the Manage ment of the Colleges on the recommenda tion of the Selection Committee con stituted under Section 31 of the U. P. Universities Act, 1973, but after the enfor cement of the Act no teacher can be ap pointed by the Management in Degree College except on the recommendation of the Commission. This is clear from Sec tion 12 (1) of the Act, which is reproduced below: "12. Procedure for appointment of teachers - (1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the Management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. " Section 16 of the Act, however, makes an exception by providing for ad hoc appointment of the teachers by the Management, if the Commission has not recommended the name of suitable can didate within the time specified therein. Section 16 (1), being relevant, is reproduced below: "it Appointment of ad hoc teachers.- (1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that Section within three months from the date of such notifica tion, the Management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst'the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor. " It is admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not under Section 16. In fact he was not found suitable for ad hoc appointment under Section 16 of the Act by the Selection Committee. There is no other provision authorising the appoint ment of a part time or an ad hoc teacher. The petitioner's appointment thus was not only not in accordance with law but was also contrary to it. The freedom of the College Management to appoint any per son as a teacher is no more there after the enforcement of the Act. Petitioner's ap pointment was, therefore, absolutely without jurisdiction. That being the posi tion, this Court cannot issue writ of man damus to set aside the order passed by the Principal, because if we set aside that order, it will result in restoration of an illegal order of appointment of the petitioner. In this connection reference may be made to Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828, wherein it was laid down as under: "in those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samiti. The High Court, there fore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the cir cumstances of the case. "
(3.) THIS writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the facts and cir cumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;