R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if services of ad-hoc lecturer appointed under Removal of Difficulties Order issued under U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act of 1980 could be terminated after six months.
(2.) IN July, 1984 applications were invited for post of lecturer in Political Science on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner applied for same. He was duly selected by the Committee constituted under Section 31 of U. P. State Universities Act. IN October 1984 he was appointed for a period of six months unless within the period a regularly selected candidate was recommended by the Commission. It was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. On 6th April, 1985 the Vice-Chancellor extended service of all ad-hoc lecturers till 30th June 1985 as termination in middle of session would have caused difficulties in education. The letter was communicated to the Principal on 9th April. He, however, issued an order terminating petitioner's services with effect from afternoon of the same day. Even though in counter-affidavit the principal defence was about lack of educational qualifications but the learned counsel raised it feebly only and rightly. Although the statutes provide that a candidate for lecturership should possess an average of 55% of the two examinations prior to Master's degree or 50% of the two examinations but the selection committee could relax it in suitable cases. The petitioner is a Ph. D. If the selection committee in the circumstances relaxed the qualifications it cannot be urged at instance of Managing Committee that the petitioner's selection was vitiated as he did not possess necessary qualifications. The absence of specific order did not make any difference as relaxation can be inferred. Moreover, one of the experts who was a member of the committee gave a letter copy of which has been filed that the decision to relax was not recorded inadvertently. According to him petitioner being the best candidate among the applicants was selected. In any case the recommendation having been accepted and acted upon by the Committee of Management it is not open to it to raise this issue. In the appointment letter issued to" petitioner clause (2) read as under : " On the expiry of six months, your services, shall stand terminated without prior notice. " His services were terminated by the Committee of Management, despite the letter of Vice-Chancellor, because it was a time-bound appointment as visualised by sub-section (2) of Section 16 of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. Whether the sub-section applied or not need not be gone into, as it was not an appointment in a situation contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 16 which empowers a management to appoint ad-hoc lecturer, ' where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification. ' It was admittedly an appointment under U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982. It empowered a management to appoint a lecturer on purely ad-hoc basis even against a permanent vacancy. The duration of such appointment is provided in clause (3) of the Order which reads as under : " 3. Manner and duration of appointment-Every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 2 shall be made in consultation with an expert, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, and shall cease on the date when the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission recommends a candidate for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. " An ad-hoc appointment under Removal of Difficulties Order comes to an end in the manner provided by the order itself. It does not leave any option with management to insert any condition that the appointment shall come to an end after six months. Clause (2) in the appointment order being in conflict with clause (3) extracted above has to be struck down. It was liable to be ignored. The petitioner on his appointment acquired right to continue till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joined. It being a statutory right could not be curtailed by the management.
(3.) IN the circumstances this petition succeeds and is allowed, order dated 9th April, 1985 terminating petitioner's services is quashed. Opposite party is directed to reinstate the petitioner as lecturer in Political Science. His appointment shall continue till regularly selected candidate is appointed by Commission. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;