D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) A large number of vacancies existed in the post of lecturers in different Government Institutions for which a Circular in the form of the Government Order dated July 16, 1989 was Issued by the Government facilitating ad hoc appointment in the post of lecturer until a regularly selected candidate by the Commission is available on the terms and conditions contained in the said Government Order. Pursuant to the advertisement published in terms of the Government Order, the petitioner having applied, was selected by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of the Government Order following the procedure laid down therein. In the appointment letter, the appointment was limited for a particular time and contemplated that the petitioner would continue till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission is available or till the time stipulated in the appointment letter, whichever is earlier. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the imposition of the condition limiting the appointment by a particular time stipulated. An interim order was issued on May 6, 1992 by this Court. By virtue of such interim order, Mr V. C. Dixit holding brief of Mr. D. S. M. Tripathi contends that, the petitioner is continuing in the post of lecturer even till today. He relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Manju Vati v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 ACJ 1009. In the said case, identical question was involved and the stipulation of the time was struck off while maintaining the condition that the appointment would continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. On these grounds, Mr. Dixit contends that this writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as in the case of Manju Vati (supra).
(2.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the said decision appears to have followed the principle of ad hoc appointment as provided in Section 18 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Selection Board and Service Commission Act. 1982, where ad hoc appointment was permitted for a limited period since been held by this Court to be unreasonable in various decisions. But the said judgment has overlooked that the 1982 Act has no manner of application in the case of a teacher/ lecturer in Government Institutions. The recruitment of a lecturer in a Government Institution is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer's Grade) Service Rules. 1992, promulgated under Article 348 (3) of the Constitution in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. According to him, these rules do not provide for any ad hoc appointment. An ad hoc appointment is made only pursuant to Government Order dated July 16. 1989. Therefore, the right that is being claimed in this writ petition flows from the said Government Order and as such the petitioner is bound by all the conditions provided in the said Government Order. At the same time, the petitioner has not challenged the conditions contained in the Government Order particularly clause (6), which provided that such appointment could be made for a limited period of one year or till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission is available, whichever is earlier. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the said condition. At the same time in the decision in the case of Manju Vati (supra), the said question had never been gone into since Court's attention was neither drawn to the said provision nor there is anything to show that clause (6) of the said Government Order was ever challenged in the case of Manju Vati (supra). Therefore, the decision in the case of Manju. Vati is distinguishable by reason in fact that it has not considered this aspect. The said decision cannot be said to be a decision declaring clause (6) of the Government Order to be ultra vires. When the petitioner seeks benefit of this Government Order, he has to accept all the conditions whether it is for or against the interest of the petitioner. Having accepted the appointment in terms of said Government Order, it is no more open to him to turn round and question the conditions stipulated in the Government Order. This point having been raised for the first time, this Court should decide the same and the decision in the case of Manju Vati (supra) should be distinguished by reason of the contention as raised by him. On these grounds, he prays that this writ petition should be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;