D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The District inspector of Schools had permitted filling up of one vacancy in the concerned school and consequently an advertisement was Issued in which only one post was mentioned. The selection committee however selected three persons in order of merit. But in the proceedings for selection it had mentioned that the selection is being made against three posts. The candidate mentioned at SI. No. 1 in the select list was appointed against a post that fell vacant for which permission was given by the District inspector of Schools and advertisement was published. The second candidate in the select list was appointed and was ultimately absorbed against the vacancy in a post held by one Smt Meera Agrawal who was transferred on 8.2.1980. The petitioner who was in SI. No. 3 in the select list contends that one Sri R. P. Singh was promoted to L. T. Grade on 2.9.1979 and therefore in that vacancy the petitioner was given appointment thereafter. initially approval was accorded but subsequently the said approval was recalled. Against the said order recalling the approval, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition No. 11550 of 1989 which was disposed of by an order dated 8.5.1991 passed by this Court, in the said order, the District inspector of Schools was directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 16E (10) of the U. P. intermediate Education Act. 1921, hereinafter called as the 'Act', finally, in the said judgment it was held that it is well within the jurisdiction of the District inspector of Schools to cancel, the appointment under Section 16E (10) of the said Act. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents by an order dated 8.2.1993 had finally decided the proceedings under Section 16E (10) of the said Act. By the said order, the said appointment was not approved. It is this order which has since been challenged in this petition.
(2.) Mr. S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were three vacancies and since the second candidate has been absorbed, therefore, the petitioner should also be similarly appointed. Though in the advertisement only one post was advertised but the second candidate in the select list having been appointed in the second vacancy, the respondents had discriminated between the second candidate and the petitioner in refusing his appointment to the third vacancy. If the respondent can allow the alleged irregular appointment of second candidate to be approved, in that event, they cannot refuse approval of the appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that he has not been regularly selected. He further contends that there being three vacancies and the vacancy in which the petitioner was sought to be accommodated having been occurred much before the vacancy occurred in 1980 against which the second candidate was appointed and approval was given to his appointment, the approval to the petitioner's appointment cannot be recalled.
(3.) Learned standing counsel Mr. K. R. Singh on the other hand contends that approval was given to advertise only one post and was so advertised accordingly, therefore, there is no scope for approval of the petitioner's appointment particularly when the selection was not in accordance with law. He further contends that even if the second candidate is accommodated illegally, even then the same cannot be a basis for the petitioner to claim any legal right. According to him the Court cannot be a party to such illegal appointment. If some illegality has been committed in some cases, then it cannot be a ground for a person to say that the respondents cannot discriminate and therefore to go on perpetuate such illegalities. He further contends that according to the prescribed procedure on the basis of the strength of the students there cannot be any more vacancy in which the petitioner could be accommodated in C. T. Grade. On these grounds he contends that this writ petition be dismissed.;