- (1.) This Special Appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 8 August 2014 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ A-No.23801 of 2000 filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 31 March 2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh has been dismissed for the reason that the Committee of Management could not have made an ad hoc appointment against a substantive vacancy in 1998.
(2.) The writ petition had been filed alleging that on retirement of an Assistant Teacher on 30 June 1998, a substantive vacancy arose in the Sri Bihari Lal Bhartiya Inter College Pali Mukeempur, District Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution'). All that is further stated is that the Committee of Management notified the vacancy to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and since no appointment was made, the Committee of Management of the Institution published an advertisement in two newspapers namely Pravdha Dainik on 16 September 1998 and Dainik Lok Tantrik Vishwa Darpan on 17 September 1998. The appellant-respondent applied for being appointed and ultimately his name was recommended by the Selection Committee on ad hoc basis till a regular selection was made by the Commission. Papers relating to his appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting approval and since no action was taken, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.35162 of 1999 which was disposed of on 18 August 1999 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision. This representation was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 31 March 2000 for the reason that neither was the vacancy advertised in widely published newspapers nor the requisite fifteen days time was provided. It was also stated that a short-term vacancy had not arisen against which the ad hoc appointment could be made and in any case, the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of law. The writ petition filed to challenge this order was dismissed holding that a substantive vacancy could not have been filled up on ad hoc basis in 1998.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that an interim order was granted on 25 May 2000 that in case the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher, he shall be permitted to continue to work. It is his submission that once an interim order was granted in the writ petition, then the Court while deciding the writ petition should have examined whether salary was paid to the petitioner in terms of the interim order.;