S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.10.1997 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition made the following observation : "It is, however, made clear that the District Inspector of Schools. Saharanpur shall take a decision in the matter within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as to whether the promotion of those persons on whose vacancies the petitioners had been appointed, have been confirmed. In case respondent No. 1 finds that their promotions had been confirmed, the short term vacancy ceases and ad hoc appointments can be made by the Deputy Director of Education in accordance with the rule referred to above. Respondent No. 1 will take appropriate action by intimating such vacancies to the Deputy Director of Education of the region concerned and he will take suitable action in the matter. As regards the past salary, if for the period the petitioners have worked that has not been paid, that shall be paid in accordance with law to the petitioners within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
(2.) The core question that calls for consideration in this case is whether a teacher appointed in C.T. grade under para 2 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 on or before May 13, 1989 is on the short-term vacancy being converted into a substantive one entitled to a substantive appointment and on fulfilment of conditions stipulated in Section 33B of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards, 1981 (U.P. Act 5 of 1982)?
(3.) The case of the appellants before the learned single Judge was that they were appointed in short-term vacancies caused due to ad hoc promotion of permanent incumbents to L.T. grade. Learned single Judge held that the appellants were appointed assistant teachers in C.T. grade on 17.8.1987 and their appointments were approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 11.11.1988. Their claim for salary was opposed on two grounds : First, that the approval of the petitioner was accorded only for specified period from 17.8.1987 to 31.12.1987 and not till the selected candidates were appointed by the Selection Board ; Second, that the appointments were to be made from the quota of reserved pool teachers but instead of making appointments from that category, the management illegally appointed the petitioners. Overruling the first objection, the learned single Judge held, relying upon a decision of this Court in Shiva Chandra Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, 1986 UPLBEC 248. that the appellants were entitled to continue till the short-term vacancy existed or till the regularly selected candidates were appointed by the management. Learned single Judge, however, held that there was nothing to show that the teachers who were given ad hoc promotion and in whose place the appellants were given ad hoc appointments had been confirmed. Learned single Judge was of the view that a short-term vacancy would cease to exist in case the promotee teachers had been confirmed and in that event, fresh appointments could be made in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982 and the rules made thereunder and it was in this view of the matter that the District Inspector of Schools has been directed by the learned single Judge to take a decision as to whether the promotee teachers in whose place the appellants were given ad hoc appointments had been confirmed. As regards the second objection taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, the learned single Judge held that it had not been stated in the counter-affidavit that any reserve pool teacher was available who could claim appointment in preference to the appellants.;