- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. The petitioner has as sailed the order dated 21-4-1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to accord approval to his appointment as As sistant Teacher in L. T. Grade. The petitioner has prayed for necessary direc tions to the respondents for payment of salary as Assistant Teacher in the L. T Grade at the recognised institution 'ravi Mahendra Kumar Sardar Ballabh Bhai Inter College-Deara, Sultanpur.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a duly appointed Assistant Teacher on the clear vacancy which was created with effect from 1-7-1992 after the retirement of Sri Baldeo Prasad, a L. T. Grade Teacher at the Institu tion. It has further been alleged that the Institution had sent necessary intima tion/requisition with regard to the aforesaid vacancy to fill up the post to the District Inspector of Schools which was received in his Office on 25-8-1992. THE Institution thereafter advertised the post and after duly constituted Selection Committee made the selection on 23-10-1993, the petitioner was offered appointment and he joined the In stitution with effect from 28-10-1993. THE relevant papers relating to the petitioner's appointment was sent to the District In spector of Schools for grant of approval for financial sanction of payment of salary. THE District Inspector of Schools by order dated 21-4-1994 refused to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the institution had not sent necessary requisition/intimation with regard to the vacancy. It was further indicated that as there was a ban imposed by the Government by Government Order dated 24-6-1993 the ad hoc appointments cannot be made and the appointment of the petitioner in the above circumstances, cannot be approved for financial sanction for payment of salary. In the counter-affidavit the District Inspector of Schools has admitted that intimation/requisition for the post in L. T. Grade was received in the Office on 25-8-92 but as it was not on proper form, the same was not sent to the Commission. The Dis trict Inspector of Schools has further stated that T J. P. Secondary Education Services Commission' was not functioning from July, 1991 till December, 1994. The ad hoc ap pointment to the petitioner was not made after advertisement was made through recognised newspaper of the locality. The respondent No. 1 has further alleged that the papers relating to ad hoc appointment of the petitioner were received in January, 1994. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) IN so far as the stand of respondent No. 1 that intimation/requisition to the Commission was not sent on proper form and for this reason the appointment was disapproved does not appear to be correct. IN view of the clear averments made in the counter-affidavit that intimation/requisi tion was received in the Office on 25-8-1992 but as it was not on prescribed form the same was not sent to the Commission estab lishes that intimation of vacancy was sent and duly received. The intimation of vacan cy as required under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 and sending of the requisite infor mation towards requisition for regular ap pointment are two different requirements. Section 18 of the aforesaid Act is quoted below: "18. Ad hoc Teachers (1)-Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Com mission in accordance with the provisions of this Act and- (a) the Commission has failed to recom mend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification; (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruit ment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the INtermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. " On the facts, it cannot be disputed that the intimation of vacancy was sent by the Institution to the District Inspector of Schools to be transmitted to the Commis sion for necessary action. It also cannot be disputed that the vacancy remained unfilled for more than a period of two months. The action of the management in making an ad hoc appointment in the above circumstan ces cannot be treated to be illegal or without jurisdiction and the District Inspector of Schools was not correct that there was no intimation with regard to the vacancy. I am further of the view that if the requisition for filling up the post as required under the Rules framed under U. P. Secondary Educa tion Services Commission Act, 1982 was not complied, the District Inspector of Schools ought to have immediately intimated the Institution for necessary rectification. There is no material on record to show that the District Inspector of Schools has pointed out the deficiencies immediately or within a reasonable period. The order of the District Inspector of Schools in refusing the grant approval on this court does not appear to be correct.;