- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. Brief facts of this case are that in response to an advertisement issued by the Committee of Management for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade, the petitioner had applied and was selected by the Committee of Management on 19-6-1992. On 30-6-1992 the Committee of Management gave appointment letter to the petitioner, in pursuance to which the petitioner joined duties on 1-7- 1992. It is contended that the papers for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner were forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut on 2-7-1992. Since no salary was paid to the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No. 33450 of 1992, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 7-4-1999, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority claiming benefit of Section 33-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Service (Selection Boards) Act, 1982. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of benefit of the Act of 1982. By the impugned order dated 11-11-1999, the representation of the petitioner has been ejected. This writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 11-11-1999 and also for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as in regular service, having been appointed under Section 33-B of the Act of 1982 and also to pay him the salary alongwith arrears.
(2.) I have heard Sri. I. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Despite notice to the respondent No. 3, the Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College, Harra, District Meerut, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondent. Pleadings between the petitioner and the State-respondents have been exchanged and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that there was no vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade as the promotion of Ravi Dutt Sharma, from teacher of Physical Training in L. T. Grade to Lecturer, was never granted approval by the educational authorities and thus the provisions of Section 33-B of the Act of 1982 would not be applicable. It has also been mentioned in the said order that there was a ban on fresh appointments imposed by the Government on 3-6-1992, and that the appointment of the petitioner having been made subsequent to the said date, was thus also illegal. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the order impugned in this writ petition is fully justified and does not call for interference There is no mention of any intimation of the alleged short term vacancy having been given to the educational authorities prior to issuance of the advertisement. On their own, the Committee of Management promoted the said Ravi Dutt Sharma from L. T. Grade teacher to Lecturer and without waiting for approval to be granted to such promotion, they proceeded to fill up the presumed vacancy of L. T. Grade teacher. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it has been categorically stated that in the absence of any approval having been granted to the promotion of the said Ravi Dutt Sharma, there was no vacancy which had occurred on the post of L. T. Grade teacher which required to be filled up. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said Ravi Dutt Sharma is still continuing to work as Lecturer is not acceptable in view of the fact that even alongwith the writ petition or alongwith the rejoinder affidavit or with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, no such approval to the promotion of Ravi Dutt Sharma has been filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise the appointment had been made during the period when the ban had been imposed on fresh appointments and as such also the same cannot be said to be valid. Accordingly, in my view, no interference is called for with the order impugned in this, writ petition.
(3.) THIS writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;