R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE short question that arises for consideration is if a person whose appointment was contrary to the provisions of Act and rules can challenge the order terminating his or her services.
(2.) IN December 1986 the petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc lecturer in Sanskrit by the Committee of Management till 30th June, 1987 or selection of a candidate under Higher Education Service Commission Act whichever was earlier. The appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. IN April 1987, however, her services were terminated by the Administrator, it is the legality of this order which has been assailed, and it is urged that no selection having been made by Commission the services of petitioner could not have been terminated. Violation of principle of natural justice and legality of Sec. 16 which provides for appointment for a period of six months, has also been raised. Stress has been laid on averment in counter-affidavit the services were terminated as the post has been abolished and it is urged that it was to mislead the court as in July 1987 the management has issued advertisements for filling two posts of Sanskrit lecturers. Ad-hoc appointment under Section 16 of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act can be made if the management has notified the vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of Sec. 12 of the Act and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 12 within three months from the date of such notification. The only other provision under which ad-hoc appointment could be made as under Removal of Difficulties Order issued on 4th January, 1982. But the duration of this order was for one year only. Therefore, in 1986 an ad-hoc appointment could be made u/Sec. 16 only. It is averred in paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit that the management never notified the vacancy. No specific reply has been given in the rejoinder-affidavit. In absence of notification of vacancy the management could not have appointed petitioner as ad-hoc lecturer. The defect in appointment of petitioner as such was fundamental in character as it did not empower the management to exercise the power conferred on it to make ad-hoc appointment. If the order is infirm for want of power or is in violation of provisions of the Act then it did not create any right in petitioner and she is not entitled to approach this court and claim that her services have been terminated without observing the procedure provided in law. If the appointment itself was bad then irrespective of the nature of termination order the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. For reasons stated above this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;