S.K. Dhaon, B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) One Sri C.P. Sant was a teacher C.T. Grade in Kisan Inter College, Faridpur, Bareilly. He went away. The Committee of Management, on 1-12-1985, resolved that in place of Sri C.P. Sant, the petitioner may be appointed with effect from 20-12-1985. The Committee of Management also resolved to seek approval of the District Inspector of Schools. On 26-5-1986 the District Inspector of Schools informed the Manager of the institution that, since a substantive vacancy has occurred, the Management has do I right to make any appointment. However, since the petitioner has worked dated 2-12-1985 to 20-5-1986, he may be paid salary for that period. The District Inspector of Schools declared that in future no appointment shall be made by the Management. On 24-7-1986 the Principal of the Institution informed the Distant Inspector of Schools that the petitioner had been re-employed with effect from 8-7-1986 and requested him to accord his approval. The District Inspector of Schools, on 12-3-1987, informed the Manager of the institution that there was no provision to accord approval of an appointment made by the Manager in C.T. Grade to fill in a substantive vacancy. The prayer made in the writ petition a that the respondents, including the District Inspector of Schools, may be directed to treat the petitioner as a teacher in C.T. Grade. The prayer further is that the District Inspector of Schools may also be directed to pay the petitioner his salary.
(2.) The matter is governed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that so long the Board has not been constituted. Therefore, Section 18 of the Act can have no application. Further in a substantive vacancy the Management is empowered under the relevant Removal of Difficulties Order to make ad hoc appointments. This Court in a series of cases had made it clear that an ad hoc appointment shall ensure till the Board makes a recommendation and its recommended joins the post, which is sought to be filed up, of course, it will be open to the Management to terminate the services of teacher in accordance with law.
(3.) In the instant case, the position is that the petitioner was appointed by the Management. The Management sought the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. He refused to accord the approval on the ground that the Management has no jurisdiction to make appointment in a substantive vacancy. Neither the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission & Selection Board Act nor the Removal of Difficulties Order issued thereunder, enjoin that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary. Further, Section 32 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made there under, shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. We have, therefore, to revert to the Intermediate Education Act to find out as to whether the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was necessary in the case of appointment of a teacher on ad hoc basis. We have gone through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations. The only relevant Regulation is Regulation 19 under Chapter II, which provides that where any person is appointed or promoted as a teacher in contravention of the provisions of Chapter II or against any post order than a sanctioned post of the Inspector shall decline to pay salary. We have already held that the appointment of the petitioner was perfectly valid. No prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was necessary for making appointment of a teacher in C.T. Grade on ad hoc basis. Therefore, Regulation 19 can have no play in the case of the petitioner, and ultimately, the petitioner is entitled to get his salary.;