Ravi Nath Yadav vs District Inspector of Schools and Others

R.M. Sahai, J.—By this petition a direction is sought to opposite parties to pay salary to petitioner for the post of lecturer in Mathematics in Vidyawati Yadav Smarak Maharshi Krishna Intermediate College, Handia, Allahabad from 8th July, 1984. The claim is founded on ad-hoc appointment having been made u/s 18 of U.P. Act No. v. of 1982. From various annexures filed alongwith writ petition and counter-affidavit it stands established that post of lecturer in Mathematics was sanctioned by Education department in 1983 and thereafter the committee of management notified vacancy to the commission and in absence of any selection having been made it appointed petitioner on ad-hoc basis u/s 18 of Act from 8th July, 1984. Similar order was passed in June, 1985, and petitioner was re-appointed from 8th July, 1985. But the petitioner has not been paid his salary as according to counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party the petitioner being substantively appointed in C. T. grade could not have been promoted as lecturer directly. It is further claimed that after issuance of ordinance No. 12 on 12th June, 1985 there was a ban on ad-hoc appointment and, therefore, appointment of petitioner on 19th June, 1985 to be effective from 8th July, 1985 was of no consequence.

None of the stands taken in counter-affidavit are sustainable in law. From Section 18 it is clear that once a vacancy has been notified by the management and no appointment has been made by commission within two months the committee of management was entitled to appoint a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications as prescribed under Intermediate Education Act or Regulation mace thereunder. It is not denied that petitioner possesses requisite qualifications. Therefore, committee of management did not commit any error in appointing petitioner u/s 18. In Section 18 or any other Section there is no provision that an appointment on ad-hoc basis made by committee of management u/s 18 has to be approved by District Inspector of Schools or appointment has to be made after obtaining prior permission. Therefore, the stand in counter affidavit that petitioner''s appointment without permission of District Inspector of Schools was contrary to law, cannot be accepted.

As regards Ordinance No. 12 of 1985 it does not debar committee of management from making any ad hoc appointment. All that is provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 21-A is that where any substantive vacancy in post of a teacher in an institution has to be filled by direct recruitment such post shall at the instance of Inspector be offered by committee of management to the teacher other than teacher referred to in Sub-section (2) whose name is entered in register referred to in Sub-section (1). That the post on which petitioner has been appointed and is continuing was to be filled by direct recruitment, is not disputed. But what is urged and rightly, that so long Inspector did not ask committee of management to appoint any teacher committee of management did not commit any error in either appointing petitioner from 8th July, 1985 of continuing him as ad-hoc teacher.

In the circumstances, this petition succeed and is allowed. A direction is issued to District Inspector of Schools to pay salary of. petitioner as lecturer in Mathematics from 8th July, 1984 and continue paying the same till regularly selected candidate from commission joins or reserve-pool-teacher as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 21-A of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985 is appointed. Payment of arrears shall be made within three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. There shall be no order as to costs.