D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner's ad hoc appointment against a short-term vacancy was not accorded financial sanction by the District Inspector of Schools. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pointed out that one Shri Navnath Dubey was promoted to the next higher grade i.e.. L. T. grade.
(2.) Shri T. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of such promotion, a vacancy was created in C. T. grade. Relying on the statement made in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder-affidavit, he contends that the said vacancy in C.T. Grade would be treated to be a. vacancy in L. T. grade and appointment against existing vacancy in C.T. grade is to be filled up treating them in L.T. grade. Thus, in view of promotion of Navanath Dubey according to the petitioner, a short-term vacancy had come into being. The petitioner was appointed in the said short-term vacancy in accordance with the provisions contained in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order. 1981, after publishing advertisements in two newspapers on 11.12.1996 as well as notifying in the notice board. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to the resolution dated 30.12.1996. The papers of said selection was forwarded to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, which had received the same on 3.1.1997. Since after expiry of seven days from 3.1.1997. no approval had come, an appointment letter was Issued to the petitioner on 15.1.1997. in terms thereof, the petitioner had Joined on 16.1.1997. But the financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner was refused by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 28.7.1997, contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) Shri T. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has been appointed following due process. therefore, by reason of the provision of paragraph 2 (iii) of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the appointment of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been approved on expiry of seven days from the date when the papers were received in the Office of the District Inspector of Schools, viz., on 3.1.1997. The appointment having been made on 15.1.1997. 12 days after receipt of the papers in the office, therefore, the petitioner is fully covered by provisions of para 2 (iii) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order and as such, the financial approval could not have been declined. Mr. Tiwari further contends that the disapproval was based on the ground that there was no vested power in the Committee of Management to make appointment. Such ground may be available if the appointment was against a substantive vacancy and sought to be made under the First Removal of Difficulties Orders. Whereas under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the management has the right to appoint but following the procedure laid down in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. In the present case the procedure laid down in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order having since been followed, the provisions for deemed approval has become operative. Therefore. financial sanction could not be refused on the ground that the management had no power to appoint.;