- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Siddharth Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.
(2.) UPON the retirement of the Principal of the institution, a senior most teacher was promoted to the post of Principal on adhoc basis, which resulted in a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Committee of Management resolved to fill up the short-term vacancy and based on this resolution, the vacancy was advertised in the newspaper inviting applications from eligible candi-dates. The petitioner applied and appeared before the Selection Committee. It transpires that the Selection Committee Yeccmmended his name, and thereafter, it was proved by the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management forwarded the papers for approval to the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 26. 10. 1997 and on the same date, i. a. , 26. 10. 97 also issued an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Based on the said appointment letter and in anticipation of the approval, the petitioner joined on 1. 11. 1997, and since then, is continuously functioning, as an Assistant Teacher. Since the salary was not being paid, the petitioner approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of by an order, directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to the financial approval. Based on the direction of the Court, the District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 20. 6. 2001 rejected the financial approval of the appointment of the peti tioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition praying for its guashing and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from 1. 11. 1997 onwards in accor-dance with law. The financial approval of the petitioner's appointment was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that the vacancy came into existence in the year 1993, and therefore, the Committee of Management had no power to m?k? an appointment in the year 1997 and that no previous permission/approval was taken by the Committee of Management before filling up the vacancy. The District Inspector of Schools further stated that the advertisement was not made in a newspaper which had a State circulation and that the term of the Committee of Management had expired, and therefore, the Committee of Management had no power to m?k? such appointment after expiry of its term. Further, without taking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner was allowed to join the institution, which was also against the Rules.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents, it has been urged that the va-cancy that was advertised in the newspaper indicated substantive vacancy, whereas a short-term vacancy ought to have been advertised, and therefore, on this ground, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. It was also stated that the papers wereforwarded to the Committee of Management on 26. 10. 1997 and that without waiting for the approval from the District INspector of Schools, the appointment letter was issued in violationof theclause3of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. The main point which has been canvassed before the Court, is that the previous approval/permission was not taken by the Management while filling up a short-term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher by the Committee of Man agement. Further, while forwarding the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval, the Committee pf Management issued the appointment letter without waiting for the previous approval from the District Inspector of Schools, and therefore, such appointment was illegal, and therefore, financial approval of such appointment could not be granted.;