- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to Regularise his service on the substantive post of C. T Grade Teacher and for payment of his salaries w. e. f. 15-3-1982 till date.
(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that there was a short term vacancy in the in stitution known as Gramodyogik Inter mediate College, Ashok Nagar Bharswan, Fatehpur, for which a notice was duly pasted in the notice board of the institu tion after sending intimation to the Dis trict Inspector of Schools on 10-2-1982 fixing 7-3-1982 as date for interview. The petitioner had appeared in the interview on 7-3-1982 and was selected for the ap pointment. The institution issued an ap pointment letter to the petitioner on 12-3-1982. Pursuant to the such appointment letter, the petitioner had joined his duties on 15-3-1982. IT is alleged that the school authority had sent the particulars of the candidates selected and also the list of the quality point marks allotted to them to the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 30-4-1982 and sought for the approval to the appointment of the petitioner given on 12- 3-1982. The District Inspector of Schools had disapproved the appoint ment of the petitioner. On this back ground, Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner was appointed on short term vacancy under the Uttar Pradesh Secon dary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second), Order, 1981 and the procedure prescribed in paragraph 2 for such recruitment has been complied with and as the District Inspector of Schools having not intimated his approval within seven days, the ap pointment of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been approved and as such the petitioner is entitled to the payment of his salary from 15-3-1982 as well as he is also entitled for regularisation. Sri K. R. Singh, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Ser vices Commission (Removal of Difficul ties (Second) Order, 1981, hereinafter referred to as Second Removal of Difficul ties Order, having not been complied with, the appointment of the petitioner is in valid. The petitioner, having been refused approval by a specific Order, the question of prior approval does not arise. He points out that from the pleadings, it appears that there was infraction in the procedure for appointment as is provided in para 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. Ac cording to him, the provisions provided in para 2 are mandatory, infraction of which would lead to the invalidity of such ap pointment. He had pointed out that the papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 30- 4-1982 and the approval was refused on 15-5-1982 which, according to him, is within time. Then, again he points out that there cannot be any ap pointment before the expiry of seven days from the date of receipt of details alleged to have been sent. He specifically argued that there is no possibility of regularisation of petitioner's service as there has been no regular/substantive vacancy.
(3.) SRI AN. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, relying on the decision in the case of Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors. 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, rendered by A Full Bench of this High Court, submits that no prior approval from the District Inspector of School is required when such ad hoc appointment is to be made under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. He also relied on a decision in the case of Arvind Mishra and Others v. Deputy Direc tor of Education Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpurand Ors. , 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1984 in order to contend that the ad hoc ap pointment does not require any prior ap proval. He then relied on a decision in the case of Shri Niwas Singh v. District Inspec tor of Schools, Ghazipur and Ors. , 1998 (1) UPLBEC 276 in order to contend that the decision in the case of Radha Raizada is prospective and cannot be attracted in the present case which has arisen on the basis of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. I have heard Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Singh, learned standing Counsel at length.;