D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In the post of L.T. Grade teacher, a vacancy arose on 31.3.1991 in Keshav Shiksha Sadan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Saldabad, District Allahabad. The vacancy was notified to the Service Commission by the Management on 27.6.1991. Pursuant to an advertisement, the Committee of Management selected the petitioner against the said vacancy by resolution dated 25.10.1992. The petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 26.10.1992. Pursuant to which the petitioner Joined on 1.11.1992. The Management by letter dated 10.11.1992 informed the District inspector of Schools about the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner but the District Inspector of Schools did not take any step to approve the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner due to which the petitioner is not being paid salary though he had been working in the school since 1.11.1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) By way of an application for amendment, the petitioner has sought to incorporate certain grounds by which he had attacked various provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The said application for amendment was allowed and the grounds taken have been treated to be grounds of the writ petition by consent of the learned standing counsel inasmuch as those grounds are only legal submissions on the basis of the facts already on record.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that after the creation of new posts in L.T. Grade Science and Maths, a notification was given by the Committee of Management on 27.6.1991 to the Commission, that the Management was empowered to appoint a teacher after expiry of two months, namely, after 27.8.91. On the contrary it is alleged that the Management had appointed the petitioner on 1.11.1992 though in the meantime Ordinance No. 21 of 1992 had been promulgated seeking to substitute Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') with effect from 14.7.1992. It is also alleged that the selection has not been made in compliance of Section 18 as substituted by the said ordinance since been replaced by the Act No. 24 of 1992 and that no advertisement was issued, in two newspapers having circulation in the State of U. P. Therefore, no approval could be given to the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborates his argument pointing out that certain issues relating to ad hoc appointment was not considered in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, by the Full Bench and that the Removal of Difficulties Order stand superseded by reason of the introduction of Rules 9A and 9B w.e.f. 16.7.92 published on 4.9.92 by means of amendment in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. He contends that the Removal of Difficulties Order cannot eclipse Section 18 of the said Act. If there is any contradiction between the Removal of Difficulties Order and Section 18. Section 18 would prevail. The vacancy having accrued prior to Ordinance No. 21 of 1992, the right accrued to the Managing Committee to appoint is not affected by reason of subsequent legislation, namely, Ordinance No. 21 of 1992. He had raised many other interesting points with regard to his assertion that the field is not covered by the Full Bench, therefore, a fresh look is to be given to the points raised by him. True that the points raised by him are very interesting, and the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued with great perseverance and clarity of thought but to my mind. It is not necessary to deal all the points raised in the present case on account of the facts and circumstances of the present case which does not permit such an exercise.;