D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In this appeal, stay of operation of the judgment and order appealed against has been asked for. The impugned order directed the District Inspector of Schools to regularize the service of the appellant in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the initial appointment of the petitioner/respondent being illegal, there is no scope for regularization. According to him, at a point of time when the petitioner was given appointment, there was no sanctioned post. According to him, the authority to give appointment by the Managing Committee of the school was deleted from the statute in the year 1974. Therefore, appointment given in 1997 cannot be regularized.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that after appointment was given to the petitioner, representations were being made showing that the strength of the school required more than seven teachers, whereas there were only five teachers. At the relevant point of time, according to him, the Managing Committee had the authority to give appointment. That apart, the name of the petitioner/respondent was included in the panel prepared by the District Inspector of Schools for regularization against future vacancies. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not apply. He also cited a few decisions to which reference shall be made at different stage.;