Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD petitioners' counsel and the learned Standing counsel as well as counsel for the Committee of Management. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, this writ petition, in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the parties, counsel is disposed of finally.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that one Ram Singh Tyagi was functioning as Principal in the Bhartiya Inter College, Tilhari Bujurg, district Saharanpur, hereinafter referred to as the 'College'. He was murdered sometime in the year 1991 and a vacancy arose. Senior -most Lecturer Sri Chandra Kesh Sharma was promoted as ad -hoc Principal by the Committee of Management. Petitioner No. 1 Virendra Kumar Mallik was the senior -most teacher in L.T. grade, accordingly he was promoted as ad -hoc Lecturer in the short term vacancy which accrued due to the promotion of Chandra Kesh Sharma on the post of ad -hoc Principal. In the vacancy occurring on account of promotion of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 was appointed by direct recruitment as a L.T. grade teacher. Since Ram Singh was teaching Civics classes, petitioner No. 1 was asked to teach Civics. In the meantime a dispute arose between Chandra Kesh Sharma and one Shiv Charan with regard to inter -se seniority and claim for appointment on the post of ad -hoc Principal. The Deputy Director of Education decided the said matter in favour of Shiv Charan Tyagi and he directed that Shiv Charan Tyagi be posted as ad -hoc Principal. Chandra Kesh Sharma filed writ petition before this court challenging the order of the Deputy Director but the same was dismissed so also the Special Appeal filed by Chandra Kesh Sharma. The resultant effect, was that on account of appointment of Shiv Charan Tyagi as ad -hoc Principal Sri Chandra Kesh Sharma was reverted back to his substantive post of Lecturer, but a vacancy in the Lecturer grade still existed due to the promotion of Shiv Charan Tyagi as ad -hoc Principal. Therefore, a vacancy was still available for appointment of petitioner No. 1 as ad -hoc Lecturer and consequently a vacancy also existed in L.T. Grade for the appointment of petitioner No. 2. The Committee of Management had submitted all the relevant papers before D.I.O.S., Saharanpur on 4.8.93 for according financial approval but since no order was being passed, the petitioner approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 26585/1994 and this court disposed of the said writ petition by the order dated 16.8.1994 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the District Inspector of Schools alongwith a copy of the order passed in the writ petition and the D.I.O.S. was directed to dispose of the said representation by means of a reasoned order. Thereafter, the D.I.O.S. by the order dated 25.11.94 rejected the representation of the petitioners. The petitioners then again approached this court by means of writ petition No. 2627/95 challenging the order of the D.I.O.S. The said writ petition was decided by Hon'ble S.R. Singh, J. by the judgment dated 1.2.1995, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -6. The learned Judge held that though the Full Bench of the court in Radha Raizada case has held that ad -hoc appointments either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment were not permissible but such appointments against short term vacancies could still be made under the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. It was also held by this court in the said judgment that the vacancies against which the petitioners claim to have been appointed by promotion and direct recruitment respectively were in the nature of short term vacancies. This court observed further "Therefore, the relevant question that has to be considered is whether the procedure laid down in U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 was followed and the question being a question of fact can more effectively be determined by the authority empowered to go into questions of fact. The District Inspector of Schools has turned down the approval sought for on misconception of law without adverting himself to the relevant question as to whether the procedure laid down in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 was followed -
(3.) WITH the above observations, the District Inspector of Schools was directed to re -examine the matter in the light of the provisions contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. By means of the order dated 27.4.95 whose copy has been annexed as Annexure -8, the D.I.O.S. has once again rejected the representation of the petitioners.;