Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Rai Son Of Sri Paras Nath Rai vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 13 December, 2005
Author: Syed Rafat Alam
Bench: Syed Rafat Alam
JUDGMENT
Syed Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agrawal, JJ.
1. This special appeal arises from the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30th of April, 2003 dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition No. 18520 of 2003.
2. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was filed for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Balia dated 27th of March, 2003, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, claiming payment of salary since June, 1995. The appellant claims that he was given appointment in short term vacancy as L.T. Grade Teacher in the institution in question vide order dated 26th of September, 1993 by the management of the School. It appears that salary for some time had been paid and, subsequently, it was withheld. Aggrieved appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 31415 of 1996, which was disposed of vide order dated 11th of December, 2001. From the perusal of the order of this Court dated 11th of December, 2001 it appears that the payment of salary to the petitioner was discontinued because of the order dated 26th of September, 1995, passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view that since it was not the final decision and in respect of the genuineness of the payment of salary, documents and other information were sought for from the Manager, and as such, no interference was required in the matter at that stage. His Lordship, however, while disposing of the writ petition, directed that D.I.O.S. should take appropriate decision pursuant to his letter dated 26th September, 1995 if no final decision has already been taken within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of that order. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 27th of March, 2003 passed the final order, which was impugned in the writ petition. It is apparent from the order impugned in the writ petition that the so called appointment of the appellant against the short term vacancy was de hors the rules and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools did not approve appointment and was also of the view that the approval given on 22nd of October, 1994 was meaningless.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that the vacancy was advertised on 6.9.1993, pursuant to which, he applied for the said post and after due selection he was given appointment vide letter dated 26th of September, 1993. It is also contended that the approval was also given by the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd of October, 1993. It is further submitted that the papers regarding appointment of the appellant was thereafter sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd of October, 1993. Consequently the District Inspector of Schools approved the same vide order dated 22nd of October, 1994. He further submits that once the appointment was approved, the respondent No. 3 has no authority to revoke or review the same.
4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The procedure for appointment against short-term vacancy is provided in the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (in short Order of 1981). Clause 2 of the Order of 1981 lays down the procedure for filling up short term vacancy, which is as under:
2. Procedure for filling up short term vacancies.- (1) If short term vacancy in the post of a teacher, caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise, shall be filled by the management of the institution, by promotion of the permanent senior most teacher of the institution, in the next lower grade. The Management shall immediately inform the District Inspector of Schools of such promotion along with the particulars of the teacher so promoted.
(2) Where any vacancy referred to in Clause (1) cannot be filled by promotion, due to non-availability of a teacher in the next lower grade in the institution, possessing the prescribed minimum qualifications, it shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in Clause (3).
(3)(i) The management shall intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice board of the institution, requiring the candidates to apply to the Manager of the institution alongwith the particulars given In Appendix 'B' to this order. The selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued with Notification No. Ma-1993/XV-7-1 (79)-1981, dated July, 31 1981, hereinafter to be referred to as the first Removal Difficulties Order, 1981. The compilation of quality point marks shall be done under the personal supervision of the head of institution.
(ii) The names and particulars of the candidate selected and also of other candidates and the quality point marks allotted to them shall be forwarded by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval.
(iii) The District Inspector of Schools shall communicate his decision within seven days of the date of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval.
(iv) On receipt of the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or as the case may be, on his failure, to communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by him from the Manager, the management shall appoint the selected candidate and an order of appointment shall be issued under the signature of the Manager.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this paragraph-
(i) the expression 'senior-most teacher' means the teacher having longest continues service in the institution in the Lecturer's grade or the Trained graduate (L.T.) grade, or Trained Under-graduate (C.T.) grade or J.T.C. or B.T.C. grade, as the case may be.
(ii) In relation to institution imparting instructions, to women, the expression 'District Inspector of Schools' shall mean the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools';
(iii)short term vacancy which is not substantive and is of a limited duration.
5. From a careful reading of the aforesaid provisions it is evident that in the event of any short-term vacancy, at the first stage, the management shall consider to fill up such vacancy by giving promotion of a teacher of the institution working in the next lower grade, and only in the event of non-availability of such teacher in the next lower grade, steps for direct recruitment against such short-term vacancy is to be resorted to. The Management is required to notify the same on the notice board of the institution and thereafter the selection is to be made on the basis of the quality point marks specified in the Appendix to U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The compilation of quality point marks is to be done under the personal supervision of the head of the institution, i.e., of the Principal. The Manager thereafter shall forward the particulars of the candidate selected and also of other candidates, along with quality point marks allotted, to the District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval. The District Inspector of Schools is required to communicate his decision either by approving or disapproving within seven days from the date of receipt of the particulars. It is further provided in Clause 3(iii) that in the event of such approval not being received within seven days from the District Inspector of Schools, the same will be deemed to have been approved. Management or the Manager is authorised to issue letter of appointment only when the approval of the District Inspector of Schools is received or in the event of non receipt of approval within seven days. The Management cannot issue appointment letter under his signature even before sending papers to DIOS for his approval.
6. In the case in hand, nothing has been brought on record to show that the aforesaid procedure was followed while giving appointment to the petitioner against the short-term vacancy. It has also not come on record to show that no teacher in the lower grade was available for giving promotion against such short-term vacancy and, therefore, the appointment of the appellant being de hors the rules, is void ab initio and does not clothe him with any legally enforceable right.
7. The reliance placed on the Division Bench judgments in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Sudha Chaturvedi (Smt.) and Anr. (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2965, is also of no help to the appellant, for the reason that in that case, the necessary papers for approval were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools and the approval or disapproval was not communicated to the management within seven days. In that background, their Lordships had held that the approval was deemed to have been granted and the appointment given by the management could not be said to be invalid or illegal, which is not the case here.
8. In this view of the matter, we do not find any fault in the order impugned of the learned single Judge. The appeal being without merit is dismissed.