S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) The appellant herein was appointed Assistant Teacher (L. T. Grade) in Krishak Inter College, Kasauta. district Allahabad (in short 'the College') vide appointment letter dated 5.8.1992 pursuant to which he allegedly joined his duties on 6.8.1992. The writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed for Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him salary with effect from the date he was appointed. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order under challenge herein, holding that the appointment was made without following the procedure prescribed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (in short the 'First Removal of Difficulties Order) there was nothing on the record to serve as a pointer to the fact that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was accorded before issuing the letter of appointment and. the appointment was made during the period the ban Imposed by the Government on appointment subsisted.
(2.) Admittedly, the appointment in question was made in a 'short-term vacancy' within the meaning of the term used in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, paragraph 2 of which in so far as it is germane, to the controversy, is excepted below : "2 (3) (i) The Management shall intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice-board of the institution, requiring the candidates to apply to the Manager of the institution along with the particulars given in Appendix 'B' to this order. The selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued with Notification No. Ma-1993/XV-7-1-(7)-1981. The compilation of quality point marks shall be done under the personal supervision of the head of the institution. (ii) The names and particulars of the candidate selected and also of other candidates and the quality point marks allowed to them shall be forwarded by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval. (iii) The District Inspector of Schools shall communicate his decision within seven days of the date of receipt of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. (iv) On receipt of the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or as the case may be, on his failure, to communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by him from the Manager, the Management shall appoint the selected candidate and an order of appointment shall be issued under the signature of the Manager. Explanation.--For the purpose of this paragraph (i) ............................................................................. (ii) ............................................................................. (iii) short-term vacancy shall mean a vacancy which is not substantive and is of a limited duration.
(3.) Sri Dinesh Dwivedi. learned counsel for the appellant strenuously canvassed that direct appointment against short-term vacancies made prior to Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, would not detract from its validity merely because such appointments were made sans vacancies being advertised in two Newspapers of wide circulation in addition to Notification of the vacancies on the Notice-board of the Institution ; the validity of such appointments, proceeded the submission, should be assayed on the touch-stone of the provisions embodied in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (in short 'the Second Removal of Difficulties Order')' as it stood prior to Radha Raizada in which it has been held that advertisement of short-term vacancy on the Notice-board of the Institution does not conform with the requirement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution and procedure for advertisement of such vacancy should be of the same ilk as it is in respect of ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The rival contention of Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Additional Advocate General was that the view expressed in Radha Raizada that the procedure for notifying the short-term vacancy prescribed for direct recruitment of teachers on ad hoc basis under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order would be the same as laid down under the First Removal of Difficulties Order for direct recruitment in a substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis, has retroactive effect and hence, the learned single Judge has rightly placed reliance on Radfia Raizada.;