Allahabad High Court
Uma Kant Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 December, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27715 of 2017 Petitioner :- Uma Kant Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Shri Raj Mohan Yadav appears for Committee of Management-fifth respondent.
Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 9.6.2017 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar and for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in Janta Intermediate College, Dhuriya Kasya, Distt. Kushinagar and to make payment of arrears of salary as well as future salary to the petitioners as and when it falls due on the aforesaid posts.
The record in question reflects that there is an institution namely Janta Intermediate college, Dhuriya Kasya, Distt. Kushinagar (in short "the institution in question"), which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The salary of the teachers and other employees of the aforesaid college is being paid under the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971. Two teachers of the institution in question namely Vindhyachal Sharma and Mohd. Khalil went on leave in November, 2002. After granting leave two posts of Asstt. Teachers in L.T. Grade fell vacant in the institution in question. It is contended that after recession of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Removal of Difficulties I & II Orders by the Government Order dated 25.1.1999, the Committee of Management is empowered to make appointment on the short term vacancy under Section 16EE (11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Accordingly the Committee of Management advertised the aforesaid vacancies in question, in daily newspaper 'Hindustan Ka Swaroop' and 'Dainik Rashtrachinha' on 3.1.2003, which arose after granting leave to the aforesaid persons. In response to the aforesaid advertisement made by the Committee of Management, the petitioners being fully qualified along with other persons applied for the post of Asstt. Teacher in L.T. Grade. The selection committee was constituted under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The interview took place on 1.2.2003 in which the petitioners had obtained highest quality point of marks, therefore, they had been selected on the post of Asstt. Teachers in L.T. Grade. Thereafter, the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and resolution was passed by the Committee of Management on 8.2.2003 appointing the petitioners on the post of Asstt. Teachers in L.T. Grade. Thereafter, the papers relating to appointment of the petitioners were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar (DIOS, Kushinagar) for granting financial approval vide letter dated 13.2.2003. Once no order has been passed within 15 days by the DIOS either refusing or granting financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners, the Manager of the Committee of Management issued appointment orders to the petitioners on 28.2.2003. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners joined in the institution on 6.3.2003 and since then they have been working as Asstt. Teacher in L.T. Grade in the institution in question. Meanwhile, both the teachers on the place of which the petitioners have been appointed, were retired.
Once the matter remained pending since long and no order has been passed on the financial approval of the appointment of the petitioners, they had preferred Writ Petition No.50105 of 2013 seeking writ of mandamus directing the DIOS, Kushinagar to consider for granting financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.9.2013 asking the DIOS to take final call in the matter. Inspite of the said direction, once no action had been taken, the petitioners were compelled to prefer Contempt Petition No.4230 of 2015, which was disposed of on 4.7.2015 giving one more opportunity to the opposite party to comply with the writ Court order. In compliance of the said direction, the DIOS, Kushinagar passed the order impugned dated 9.6.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioners and refusing to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners.
Shri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop has contended that the then DIOS namely Dr. O.P. Rai in compliance of the writ Court as well as contempt Court order had sent notice to the management as well as to the petitioners and heard the matter. But before passing final order, he had been transferred on 1.11.2016 and the subsequent DIOS namely Udai Prakash Mishra, who had passed the order impugned, had not given any opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the management and had passed the order impugned. It is submitted that it is well settled law that the authority will pass the order, who has heard the matter and no other authority will pass the order, who has not heard the matter. In the present case, the matter was heard by the DIOS namely Dr. O.P. Rai and the order impugned had been passed by another DIOS namely Udai Prakash Mishra, which is not permissible under the law as the same has been passed without giving opportunity of being heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that both the news papers are widely circulated and the Committee of Management had ample power under Section 16 EE (11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to make adhoc appointments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P and others, 2015 (7) ADJ 179 (FB), in support of his submission, that despite the recession of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order 1981, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Third) Order, 1982 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1982 the management is still invested with the power to make ad-hoc appointments under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is contended that in the present matter fair selection has been made and there was no infirmity or illegality while recommending the name of the petitioners but in most arbitrary manner financial approval has been declined and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the appointment in the present matter has not been made as per the dictum of Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada & Ors. v. Committee of Management VDGIC, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. In the present matter admittedly while issuing notice to the management 11 queries have been asked for. The management on its own discretion has proceeded to induct the petitioners. There was no prior permission from the DIOS and the management has not advertised the post in question in widely circulated news papers and allegedly the same was advertised in 'Hindustan Ka Swaroop' and 'Dainik Rashtrachinha', which are not widely circulated newspaper. Even on asking the original news item, the same has not been furnished. Even the quality point marks, which have been accorded to the candidates, the original copy of the same has not been served. The selection committee was not constituted as per the requirement and quality point marks have not been accorded. The papers, which have been submitted, the same has only been endorsed by the Manager of the institution. The papers were fabricated and prepared and as such the entire selection is vitiated and rightly the financial approval has been declined and as such no interference is required in the matter. Learned counsel for fifth respondent has also reiterated the arguments so advanced by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record.
In Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) the Full Bench was considering the following questions:-
"(a) Whether even after the rescission of Removal of Difficulties Orders under Section 33-E of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 19821 (U P Act No 5 of 1982), with effect from 25 January 1999, the Committee of Management retains the power to make ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancies only because it had published an advertisement for the purpose prior to 25 January 1999;
(b) Whether on enforcement of Section 33-E of the Act rescinding the Removal of Difficulties Orders issued earlier, the Committee of Management has lost all powers to make ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancies;
(c) Whether under Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act 19212, there is a power with the Committee of Management to make ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancies and if so then for what period; and
(d) Whether the Division Bench in the case of Subhash Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U P3 has laid down the correct law."
The Full Bench decided the said the reference in the following terms:-
"We consequently answer the reference in the following terms:
(a) Despite the rescission of the Removal of Difficulties Orders by Section 33-E of U P Act No 13 of 1999 with effect from 25 January 1999, the power of the Committee of Management to make appointments against short term vacancies, where the process of appointment had been initiated prior to 25 January 1999 by the publication of an advertisement, would continue to be preserved;
(b) On the enforcement of the provisions of Section 33-E, the power of a Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointments against short term vacancies would not stand abrogated in a case where the process of selection had been initiated prior to 25 January 1999;
(c) Under Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management is empowered to make an appointment against a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in the case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. An appointment made under sub-section (11) of Section 16-E as provided in the proviso thereto shall, in any case, not continue beyond the end of educational session during which the appointment was made; and
(d) The judgment of the Division Bench in Subhash Chandra Tripathi (supra) is affirmed as laying down a correct interpretation of the judgment in A A Calton."
While answering question no. 3 as to whether under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, the Management has power to make ad-hoc appointment against temporary vacancies, the Court held as under:-
"Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E has thus made a specific provision in regard to appointments in the case of temporary vacancies caused by (i) the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months; or (ii) by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. The object of the provision is to ensure that where a temporary vacancy arises as a result of fortuitous circumstances, such as leave, death, termination or otherwise, the educational needs of students should not be disturbed. The purpose of making an arrangement in the case of a temporary vacancy is to protect the interest of education so that students are not left in the lurch by the absence of a teacher in the midst of an academic session. The proviso to sub-section (11), however, stipulates that an appointment which is made under the provisions of sub-section (11) shall, in no case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which the appointment was made. The proviso is intended to ensure that the purpose of appointment against a temporary vacancy caused due to the absence of a teacher in the midst of an academic session is met by continuing the appointment during and until the end of the academic session but not further."
It is not disputed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners that the power of the Management to make ad-hoc appointments conferred upon it under the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders issued from time to time was taken away by Section 33-E, inserted by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1999 w.e.f. 25.1.1999. The limited power which still remains with the Management to make adhoc appointments is by virtue of Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Full Bench, while considering the said provision, has specifically taken note of the purpose with which Section 16-E was engrafted. It has been held that the object of the provision is to ensure that where a temporary vacancy arises during an academic session as a result of fortuitous circumstances, such as leave, death, termination or otherwise, the educational needs of students should not be disturbed. The purpose of making temporary appointment is to meet interest of education so that the students do not suffer. Thus, the vacancies contemplated by Section 16-E are unforeseen vacancies coming into existence in the midst of the academic session. These vacancies can be filled by the Management in recourse to the power under Section 16-E. These appointments, made to tide over the difficulties which the students are likely to face as a result of leave, death, termination or otherwise, in the midst of the academic session are to continue only till the end of the academic session and not any further.
In order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it would be appropriate to have a glance on the provisions of Section 16E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"[16E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Head of Institution and teachers of an institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) Every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall, except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment after intimation of the vacancy to the Inspector and advertisement of the vacancy containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State.
(3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the regulations : Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.
(4) Every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of an advertisement published under sub-section (2) shall be made to the Inspector and shall be accompanied by such fee which shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed] [* * *].
[(5) (i) After the receipt of applications under sub-section (4), the Inspector shall cause to be awarded, in respect of each such applications, quality-point marks in accordance with the procedure and principles prescribed, and shall thereafter, forward the applications to the Committee of Management.
(ii) The applications shall be dealt with, the candidates shall be called for interview. and the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be held, in accordance with the Regulation.] (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list containing in order of preference the names, as far as practicable, of three candidates for each post found by it to be suitable for appointment and shall communicate its-recommendations together with such list to the Committee of Management.
(7) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), the Committee of Management shall, on receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee under sub-section (6), first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee, and on his failure to join the post, to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection Committee under this section, and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list.
(8) The Committee of Management shall, where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, refer the matter together with the reasons of such disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of appointment to the post of Head of Institution and to the Inspector in the case of appointment to the post of teacher of an Institution, and his decision shall be final.
(9) Where no candidate approved by the Selection Committee for appointment is available, a fresh selection shall be held in the manner laid down in this section.
(10) Where the State Government, in case of the appointment of Head of Institution, and the Director in the case of the appointment of teacher of an institution, is satisfied that any person has been appointed as Head of Institution or teacher, as the case may be, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the State Government or, as the case may be, the Director may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and pass such consequential order as may be necessary.
(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or [by death, termination or otherwise] of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed : [Provided that no appointment made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made.]"
Section 16E (4) provides that every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of an advertisement published under sub-section (2) shall be made to the Inspector and shall be accompanied by such fee which shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed. Moreso Section 16E further provides that such appointment can only be valid upto the end of educational session. Even the query has also been made from the management whether the two teachers on whose leave the appointments in question were given, had retired or not, but no satisfactory response has been given. .
Selection/Appointment against short term vacancy is governed under the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order 1981. Same provides for as follows:
"Uttar Pradesh Secondary Eduction Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)(Second) Order, 1981
1. Short title and commencement- (1) This order may be called the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Eduction Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)(Second) Order, 1981
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 alongwith 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 of 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 continuous 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 Inspector of Girls Schools.'
(iii) short term vacancy which is not substantive and is of a limited duration."
3. Duration of ad hoc appointment- Every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 2 of this Order shall cease from the earliest of the following dates, namely:
(a) when the teacher, who was on leave or under suspension joins the post; or
(b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad hoc appointment expires; or
(c) when the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist."
"Short term vacancy" means a vacancy which is not substantive and is of limited duration. For filling short term vacancy by way of direct recruitment, Management is obligated to intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools, and further obligated to notify the same on notice board, requiring the candidates to apply to Manager alongwith particulars given in Appendix "B" of Order. Selection has to be necessarily made, on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix specified under First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981. Compilation of quality points marks is to be done under the supervision of Head of Institution. The names and particulars of candidate selected and also of the other candidates and the quality point marks allotted to them has to be forwarded by the Manager to District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval. The District Inspector of Schools is obligated to communicate his decision within seven days to receipt of particulars by him failing which Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. After receipt of approval of District Inspector of Schools or in the event of failure to communicate his decision within seven days of receipt of papers, as the case may be Management is free to make appointment. Life span of short term appointment is to come to an end when the short term vacancy otherwise would cease to exist.
Full Bench of our Court, in the case of Km. Radha Raizada and others Vs. Committee of Management VDGIC (Supra) has dealt with the procedure that is to be adhered to even in the matter of ad-hoc appointment of teacher against short term vacancies. Same provides for as follows:
"43.Neither Section 18 of the Principal Act nor the First Removal of Difficulties Order envisaged for ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy. As earlier noticed, Section 18 and the First Removal of Difficulties Order provided for ad hoc appointment either by promotion by direct recruitment only against substantive vacancy which has been notified to the Commission. Since short term vacancy is not a substantive vacancy, the state Government by notification dated 7-9-1981 came out with a Second Removal of Difficulties Order providing procedure for filling the short term vacancies. The short vacancy as envisaged in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order which arises on account of teachers going on leave granted to him or on account of suspension of a teacher pending disciplinary proceedings which is duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The power to appoint teachers either by promotion or by direct recruitment under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order is open only against short term vacancies and not against substantive vacancy. Paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order provides that if short term vacancy in the post of teacher caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or other wise arises the same is required to be filled by the management of the institution by promotion of permanent senior most teacher of the institution from lower grade. The Management is further required to immediately inform the District Inspector of Schools of such promotion along with particulars of the teaches who is promoted. Thus if the short term vacancy arises the said vacancy has to be filled in by the promotion from amongst the permanent senior most teacher of the institution in the next lower grade and such promotion has to be intimated to the District Inspector of Schools. Paragraph 2 of the Order further-provides that the short term vacancy, if cannot be filled by promotion due to non-availability of a teacher in the lower grade possessing the prescribed minimum qualification, the same may be filled by the direct recruitment in the manner laid down in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph of the Order which provides that the management shall intimate the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice board of the institution requiring the candidate to apply to the Manager of the institution along with particulars. The advertisement of short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution according to me, in fact no notice to the prospective eligible candidates as no prospective candidate is expected to visit each institution to see the notice board for finding out whether, any short term vacancy has been advertised. Since the payment of salary to the teachers appointed against the short term vacancy is the liability of the State Government, the advertisement of short term vacancy must conform to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution which prohibit the State from doing anything whether by making rule or by executive order which would deny equal opportunity to all the citizens. The provision contained in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order which provides that the short term vacancy shall be notified on the notice board of the institution does not give equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates of the District, Region or the State to apply for consideration for the appointment against the said short term vacancy. Such kind of notice is an eye-wash for the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution. This aspect can be examined from another angle. If the notice of short term vacancy, through the notice board of the institution is accepted, it will throw open the doors for manipulation and nepotism. A management of an institution may or may not notify the short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution and yet may show to the authority that such vacancy has been notified on the notice board of the institution and may process the application of its own candidate for the appointment against, the short term vacancy. I am, therefore, of the view that the procedure for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as it is for the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The management after intimating such vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools advertise such short term vacancy at least in two Newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh in addition to notifying the said vacancy on the notice board of the institution and further the application may also be invited from the local employment exchange. Thus, the procedure provided for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Thereafter, the procedure provided in subparagraph (3) (i, ii, iii, iv) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed for making such appointment. As seen the procedure provided under subparagraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the selection is required to be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The name and particulars of the candidates as selected and other candidates along with quality point marks allotted to them as required to be forwarded by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools for the prior approval. The District Inspector of Schools is under obligation to communicate his decision within seven days of submission of such particulars failing which the District Inspector of Schools is deemed to have given his approval. The duration of such ad hoc appointment is till the teacher who was on leave or under suspension joins the post or When the short term Vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. This ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment against short term vacancy can only be resorted only after it is found that the said vacancy cannot be filled in by promotion. This ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy is not an appointment either under Section 18 of the Act or under the First Removal of Difficulties Order as the power and procedure provided for the ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy is under the Second Removal of difficulties Order and further is not against the substantive vacancy. After the procedure Provided in paragraph 2 of the Second Order has gone through no further approval of the district Inspector of Schools is required for such appointment. However it has come to notice that sometimes the Management resort to unfair practice in case of such appointments. For that contingency there is adequate safeguard provided in the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971."
On the touchstone of statutory provisions holding the field what we find that short term vacancy came into existence, as has been set up by the petitioner, on account of sanctioning leave to two Asstt. Teachers. Even though inspite of categorical direction by the DIOS, the information has not been furnished, when the vacancy has occurred. As per the material, which has been placed, the Court is also of the opinion that the said appointment is dehorse the prescribed procedure as envisaged. At no point of time any proper computation of quality point marks has ever been done and straightaway on the basis of resolution the appointment had been offered. At no point of time proper response has been submitted to the notice issued to the Committee of Management and entire material is silent in response to the shortcoming as has been indicated by the respondents. While passing the order impugned, the DIOS, Kushinagar has clearly made an observation that the appointment has been made in violation of the relevant provisions. It was incumbent and obligatory on the part of the management or the petitioners to disclose before this Court, the procedure that has been adhered in making the appointment. More so any appointment under Section 16E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would automatically be cancelled after the end of the session. As such the petitioner cannot claim right to continue after the end of the session. Similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision dated 09.12.2015 passed in Special Appeal No.871 of 2015 (C/M Gandhi Inter College & Anr. v. Regional Deputy Director of Education & Ors.).
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and as such no interference is required.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 SP/