- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. This Special Ap peal arises out of the judgment dated 12-11-1992 of the learned Single Judge rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10404 of 1990.
(2.) THE short question that falls for our determination is as to whether the Committee of Management of a recog nised Intermediate College receiving grant-in-aid from the State of U. P. can make appointment on ad hoc basis by direct recruitment as provided under Sec tion 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982 ). This question is no morels integra and has been concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Charu Chandra Tewari v. The Distnct Inspector of Schools, Deoria and other, reported in 1990 (1) UPLBEC 160, wherein it has been held that the vacancy under Section 18 of the Act should be filled up by promotion and the method of direct recruitment should be adopted only if the teachers for promotion are not avail able. This view of the Division Bench has also been affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management vidyawati Darbari Balika Inter College, Allahabad and others, reported in 1994 Vol. 3, UPLBEC 1551. The Full Bench decision has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1959. Admitted facts of the case, in short, is that the Public Intermediate College, Kerakat, District Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as the institution), is a recog nized institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State of U. P. and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1921 ). In the said institu tion, one post of Lecturer in Economics and one post of Lecturer in Psychology fell vacant on 30-6-1989 on account of retire ment of the incumbents. The Committee of Management notified the post of Lec turer in Psychology to be filled up by promotion under 40% quota as provided under the Act of 1921 and, accordingly, proposed the name of Sri Lalta Prasad Maurya, who was found to be eligible for the promotion to the post of Lecturer, whereas the post of Lecturer in Economics was notified to the Commis sion for recommending the name of suitable candidate. When the Commission failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed within one year from the date of notifica tion and the post remained vacant for more than two months, the Committee of Management decided to fill the post by ad hoc appointment through direct recruit ment. Consequently, the appellant was ap pointed as ad hoc Lecturer in Economics by direct recruitment.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Committee of Manage ment, the respondent No. 1 made a repre sentation before the authorities of the Education Department and also ap proached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10404 of 1990 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned judgment dated 12-11-1992 on the ground that respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner), being senior most L. T. Grade Teacher in Economics, was en titled to be promoted on ad hoc basis as lecturer in economics in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Charu Chandra Tewari v. Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Deoria (supra ). It has also been held that the Committee of Management was not justified in filling the aforesaid vacancy by direct appoint ment and, therefore, the appointment of the appellant (respondent No. 6 to the write petition), was quashed and a direction, was issued to promote respondent No. 1 (writ petition), as Lecturer in Economics on ad hoc basis forthwith and allow him to con tinue until regular selection was made by the Commission. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the present Special Appeal has been filed. We have heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel appear ing on behalf of the Committee of Management, Sri Namwar Singh and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, as well as on behalf of the Committee of Management, that respon dent No. 1 was not found suitable by the Committee of Management to be promoted as Lecturer and, thus, it was not a fit case where the discretion under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India should have been exercised in favour of respondent No. 1.;