- (1.) H. L. Gokhale, CJ. Heard Sri V. K. Singh, in support of this appeal and Mr. G. C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respon dents.
(2.) THE appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27. 11. 2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Si?ce the controversy in this matter can be dealt with at the admission stage itself, we admit the appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The second appellant-Committee of Management is running an Intermedi-ate College at Mharpur in district Azamgarh. One of the subjects, which is being taught in this College is Education. The College was granted recognition to teach this subject in 1969 when it was upgraded to Intermediate College. The then Principal of the Institution himself was taking this subject. Hence when the Com-mittee of Management applied for one post for this subject respondent No. 3-District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Institution on 5. 3. 1970 recording that si?ce the Principal himself was taking this subject, hence when he will retire, the matter of appointment of another teacher and clearance of such a post will be considered.
(3.) IT so happened that the Principal retired on 30. 6. 1991 and before retire-ment of the Principal, a request was made on 20. 5. 1991 for clearance of this post. IT is the admitted case of the parties that recognition to teach 'education' as a subject in the Institution continued to be retained. However, si?ce despite re-jninders, the authorities did not grant permission to the Committee of Manage ment to fill up the post of Lecturer in Education, the Committee of Management decided to fill up the vacancy and notified the same. In response, applications were received. After considering the merit of the appellant No. l, who was also fully gualified, being M. A. (Education) and B. Ed. , the Committee of Management appointed the appellant No. 1 on such post on 8. 12. 1992. In response, the appel lant No. 1 joined and continued to work as Lecturer in Education. The papers were thereafter forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District In spector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the reguest for grant of financial sanction by his order dated 27. 8. 1993. In that order, he recorded that si?ce ten posts were sanctioned earlier and the Prin cipal was taking one of those subjects, there was no question of sanctioning any mor? post. This order dated 27. 8. 1993waschallenged by the appellants herein by filing a writ petition. When the matter came up for admission before the learned Single Judge, an interim order was passed directing the opposite parties to pay the salary to the appellant No. 1, as ad-hoc Lecturer in Education each month. When the writ petition reached for fina? hearing, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment of Km. Radha Raizada v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (2) ESC 345 (Ali) (FB), that si?ce the appointment was made without advertisement etc. , it could not be cleared and, therefore, he dismissed the writ petition.;