- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3.
(2.) FACTS, in brief, are that a short-term vacancy arose due to promotion of Smt. Manju Lata Shukla from C. T. to L. T. grade and in that vacancy petitioner was ap pointed vide order dated 27-8-93 in C. T. Grade. In response to the appointment letter petitioner joined on 1-9-93. There after the management sent the relevant papers on 9-9-93 to the Regional Inspectors of Girls' Schools, Lucknow, op posite party No. 2 for approval. On 6-11-93 some queries were made by the R. I. G. S. which later on were removed by the Management vide letter dated 25-11-93. The opposite party No. 2, however, rejected the approval of the petitioner on the grounds firstly, that there was ban on recruitments and secondly, that in view of provisions of Sections 15 (1) and 16 (1) of the Commission's Act the Committee of the Management had no powers to make new appointments. Contention of the petitioner is that Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are not applicable in petitioner's case as they relate for regular appointment and the ban which was imposed by the State Govern ment, has already been declared illegal by this Court in a number of decisions. Petitioner has filed a copy of order dated 21-7-92 which provides that the ban will not apply for the appointments on short-term vacancies. In view of the aforesaid facts, an interim order was passed by this Court on 16-2-94 and on the basis of which petitioners is working on the post till today. Petitioner's grievance is that in spite of this Court's order she is not being paid salary. Sri M. P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits before this Court that U. P. Secon dary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 was not applicable and the case of petitioner was fully covered by the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commis sion and Selection Board's Act, 1982.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of apex Court reported in 1997 (1) UPLBEC 199 : 1997 (1) LBESR 961 (SC), Muneshwar Dull Pandey v. Ramjeet Tewari, where their lordships has held that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 198i have permanent operational effect and covers all the future vacancies after 1991. Sri S. P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 16 of the Act applies only to regular ap pointments against the permanent vacan cies and not to the short-term vacancies. In view of the aforesaid decision of apex Court, the impugned order dated 12-1-1994, passed by opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.;