N.K.Mitra, C.J. - (1.) The question that surfaces for consideration in this appeal is as to what are the parameters of adjudging a teacher as 'unfit' for the purposes of ad hoc promotion under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982.
(2.) Matrix of the facts beyond the pale of controversy is that one Sri Raghubans Singh, a permanent lecturer in Acharya Ram Chandra Shukla Inter College. Saron, district Deoria, retired from service on 30th June, 1996. The appellant and respondent Shambhu Nath Rao, the two permanent teaches in L.T- grade staked their respective claims for ad hoc promotion in place of Sri Raghubans Singh. it would appear that the matter suffered procrastination inasmuch as neither the Committee of Management of the institution nor the District Inspector of Schools took any decision in the matter and, therefore, the appellant herein knocked the door of this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37699 of 1996 which came to be disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 30.11.1996 post-fixed with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation stated to have been filed by the appellant. It was made clear that appointment, if any, made in the meantime would abide by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools that might be taken on the representation preferred by the appellant. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated May 12, 1997 held that the appellant being senior to respondent Shambhu Nath Rao would have precedence over the latter to be given ad hoc promotion on the post of lecturer (History) which fell vacant by reason of the retirement of Raghubans Singh. The Committee of Management was accordingly directed by the District Inspector of Schools to convene a meeting, pass a resolution for promotion of the appellant and submit the papers to his office within 15 days for further action in the matter. The said order was challenged by the respondent Shambhu Nath Rao in the writ petition from which stems the present Special Appeal. Accordingly, the learned single Judge held the view that the instances as given in the relevant rule as to when a teacher shall be deemed to be 'unfit' fall short of being exhaustive and that the discussion made by the District Inspector of Schools were not compatible with the law and the relevant facts were not taken into reckoning by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 12.5.1997 and relegated the matter to the District Inspector of Schools for decision afresh in accordance with law after reckoning into consideration the service records of both the contesting parties and giving them opportunity of being heard.
(3.) We have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi for the appellant. The standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri H, N. Srivastava for the respondent No. 4.;