ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) TWO teachers of the institution namely Rizwana Adib (Petitioner) and Shobha Sarkar (Respondent No. 5) have set up a claim for appointment as ad hoc Principal in the institution. An order has been passed by the Joint Director of Education dated 26.4.2008 wherein in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 313 of 2008 dated 3.3.2008, it has been held that Shobha Sarkar is entitled to be treated as regular Lecturer under Section 33 (1-A) w.e.f. 12.6.1985 in place of 6.4.1991 as was directed earlier under order dated 20.3.1996.
(2.) THIS order would result in Shobha Sarkar being treated as senior to the petitioner and therefore, to be appointed officiating Principal. The order is being challenged on the following grounds: (a) Assuming without admitting that initial appointment of the respondent was against a substantive vacancy on the post of lecturer caused due to selection and appointment of Mithilesh Saxena Lecturer Hindi as Principal of the institution. Yet it has to be ascertained as to whether such ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy was made in accordance with Clause 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 inasmuch as under Section 33 (1-A) only such teachers who had been appointed in accordance with Clause 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 are entitled to be considered for regularization." (b) From the facts stated by Shobha Sarkar in her earlier writ petition No. 4218 of 2008 as quoted in paragraph 30 of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that applications for the post of ad hoc Principal were invited by the Committee of Management and after selection papers were forwarded to the Regional Inspector of Schools for approval and approval in fact was granted vide order dated 30.12.1984. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 5 had admittedly not been applied inasmuch as under Clause 5 it is the District Inspector of Schools who is required to invite applications and thereafter determine and forward the name of the selected candidate for ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. Faced with the aforesaid contentions Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate submits that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 30.1.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4218 of 2008, the issue as to whether the respondent No. 5 was appointed against a substantive vacancy on 16.4.1984 does not survive any further for consideration. It has to be accepted that initial appointment of Shobha Sarkar was made on 14.6.1984 against a substantive vacancy. He clarifies that earlier under the earlier order, Shobha Sarkar was refused regularization w.e.f. 12.6.1985 only on the ground that there was no substantive vacancy on the date of appointment. The reasons so recorded stands dislodged under the Judgment dated 30.1.2008 and, therefore, impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Education dated 26.4.2008 recording that petitioner stands regularized w.e.f. 12.6.1985 is legally justified.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.;