- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. In all the five cases the dispute is as to whe ther the short term vacancy can be filled up by the management as the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the authorities only on the ground that the Director of Education in his circular dated 9-6-1995 has directed the District Inspector of Schools not to grant any approval or financial aid in the cases where the management has filled up the short term vacancies as the U. P. Secondary Education Commission is in existence and functioning, therefore, the question of appointment by the management does not arise.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the said circular dated 9-6-1995 does not cover the case of the petitioners, as the said, which can be filled up by the management under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders passed under the U. P. Secondary Education Commis sion and Selection Board Act (Act No. 5 of 1982 ). Moreover, the Secon dary Education Service Commission has not been vested with the power to make selections to fill up the short term vacancies, which are not to be filled up on substantive vacancies. This issue has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 where this Court has observed that the procedure for filling up the short term vacancies which are not in the substantive capacity remains the same as prior to the amendment which was enforced with effect from 14-7-1992. In view of the above, the management has the power to fill up the short term vacancies and there is no requirement of prior permission/ approval from the District Inspector of Schools or any other authority for filling up such vacancies in non-substantive capacity.
(3.) SHRI Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Standing Counsel has, how ever, raised the issue that the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has also laid down the procedure for filling up the vacancies on ad hoc basis which is also applicable for filling up the short term vacancies. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Nand Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others, 1994 (1) ESC 365, where the Court has observed as under : "the appointees on short term vacancy on ad hoc basis, stand on the same footing on which an ad hoc appointee on substantive vacancy stands. If the ad hoc appointees are to continue for years, the Teachers appointed in the short term vacancies caused by the vacancy of Teachers promoted on ad hoc basis are also likely to continue for years. Thus in the name of short term vacancy, under the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order issued under Act No. 5 of 1982 the vacancy is also likely to continue for years. " Consequently the ad hoc appointees on short term vacancies are also likely to continue for years under the Scheme of the Act. There is no difference in the two appointments one as ad hoc appointee on substantive vacancy and the other an ad hoc appointee in a short term vacancy except that in first case the vacancy is to be notified to the Commission and in Second case the vacancy is not to be notified. There is hardly any justification for adopting two different standards for advertising the vacancy of aforesaid two posts.;