D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioners were selected for appointment against short-term vacancies after publication of an advertisement in only one newspaper. The selection was sought to be approved by the Manager through his letter dated 20.11.1995 which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This was received by the Deputy Director of Education. Region II. Agra on 16.2.1996. But no approval was accorded to the proposed selection for appointment. On 26.2.1996 the Committee of Management issued appointment letters to the petitioners which is Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. Pursuant to such appointment letters, the petitioners Joined on 27.2.1996. By letter dated 28.2.1996, the Deputy Director of Education informed the Manager of the institution that the papers of appointment sent by the Management through letter dated 16.2.1996 are irregular and against the Government Orders and that the appointments were made illegally. The petitioners had moved a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12163 of 1996 against the refusal to approve ad hoc appointment of the petitioners. In the said writ petition, an interim order was granted. Ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 14.3.1997 which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition by directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for approval. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner's case was reconsidered by an order dated 2.6.1997 which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Shri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the earlier rejection of the approval which was subject-matter of the earlier writ petition was also on the self-same ground. Further, he contends that the grounds on which the approval was refused in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and had relied on a decision in the case of Writ Petition No. 37497 of 1996 decided on 3.12.1996. Chatur Singh and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others, wherein all these grounds were held to be invalid in an Identical situation.
(3.) Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the question is dependent on the valid selection and appointment of the petitioners. He relies on the statement made in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit and points out that the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second' Order), 1981 has not been followed and as such the appointment cannot be approved, He also assails the other contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan and supported' the grounds of rejection of the approval.;