RAFAT ALAM, SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ - (1.) THE special appeal has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration applica­tion. As requested by learned Counsel for the parties, the special appeal is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) SRI A.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the vacancy in question was for short term and, therefore, it was not required to be advertised in two daily news papers. Placing reliance on section 16-E (11) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the "1921 Act') and Regulation 9 (1) Chapter II of the Regulations framed there under he contended that the aforesaid provision commences with non-obstante clause and, therefore, have overriding effect. They do not require that a short term vacancy i.e., leave vacancy shall be referred to selection committee. Meaning thereby that there is no selection, hence no advertisement. He submitted that when the requirement of reference to selection committee has been dispensed with, it automatically results in the inference that the vacancy need not be ad­vertised in the news papers and submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in law in holding otherwise relying on the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management. 1994 (2) ESC 345 He also contended that the aforesaid two provisions namely section 16-E (11) of the Act and Regulation 9 (1) Chapter II have not been considered in Radha Raizada (supra), therefore, the said judgment needs to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench. He lastly contended that in fact a short term vacancy is not a vacancy at all inasmuch as holder thereof continue to maintain lien on the post and, therefore, the procedure prescribed for appointment on regular basis would have no application to a short term va­cancy. Learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Sudha Chaturvedi (Smt.) and another, 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2965 contended that the Division Bench has already held the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge in appeal before this Court erroneous and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in any case.
(3.) HAVING given our anxious thoughts to the aforesaid submissions we however, do not find substance in any of the aforesaid submissions.;