- (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for appellants and Sri R. R. Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) STATE of Uttar Pradesh has fiied this intra court appeal against the judg ment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 15th July, 2004, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19736 of 2001. Brief facts of the case relevant to be noticed for deciding the present ap peal are as follows: Barauli Inter College, Barauli Rao, Aligarh is a recognised and aided interme diate college. The provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and those of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully appli cable to the teachers and staffs of the institution. One L. T. Grade teacher working in the institution, namely, Govind Singh was promoted on ad hoc basis as lec turer under order dated 9th July, 1997. As a consequence thereto resultant short-term vacancy was caused in the institution in L. T. Grade. The vacancy is stated to have been advertised by the Committee of Management of the institution for the purposes of making ad hoc appointment in one daily newspaper, namely, Amarujalaon 12th August, 1997. From the record it is established that nearly 20 applications were received in response to the advertisement. Out of candidates, who actually appeared for interview, petitioner-respondent No. 1 was found to be most suitable and therefore, he was issued an appointment letter by the Manager of the institution dated 22nd September, 1997. The petitioner joined in pursuance thereto. Since the petitioner was not being paid salary, despite his appointment as such by the District Inspector of Schools, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4438 of 1999. The writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge by means of the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1999 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to examine the legality of the appoint ment of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within the time specified in the order of the Court qua payment of salary as claimed. The District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 29th April, 1999 refused to accord approval to the said ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner against short-term vacancy on fol lowing three grounds: (a) Vacancy has been advertised in only one newspaper, when under law it should have been advertised in at least two newspapers, (b) The management of the institution had no jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment against short- term vacancy on the relevant date, and (c) There was a ban imposed on ad hoc appointment by the State Government. Not being satisfied with the order of the District Inspector of Schools peti tioner filed writ petition No. 19736 of 2001. The Hon'ble Single Judge after noticing the objections raised in the order of the District Inspector of Schools, has allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 15th July, 2004 and has held that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was entitled to salary from the date of appoint ment. It is against this judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge that the State has filed the present intra court appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on behalf of State-appellants contends that the Hon'ble Single Judge was not justified in recording a finding that publication of the vacancy in one newspaper alone was sufficient and the breach of the requirement of advertisement being made in two newspapers was only a technical lapse, for which the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner could not have been disapproved. LEARNED Standing Counsel with reference to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada & Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College & Ors. , 1994 (2) ESC 345 (AII) (FB), submits that the Full Bench has categorically laid down as a proposition of law that for ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies, advertisement must be made in at least two newspapers having adequate circulations. He therefore, submits that such law which has been declared by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) could not have been diluted by the Hon'ble Single Judge by providing the publication in one newspaper was sufficient. So far as other two grounds mentioned in the order of the District Inspector of Schools are concerned, learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that on the relevant date the management was competent to make appointment on ad hoc basis against short-term vacancy and further that no ban was imposed on ad hoc appointment against short-term vacancy by the State Government.;