Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Admittedly, vacancy occurred on 17.11.2002, but there is nothing on record to show that any steps were taken by the respondents for recruitment on the said post through Commission. In the absence of any candidate recommended by the Commission, the management is not empowered to make ad hoc appointment under 1980 Act. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that any such appointment at all was made by the management. We find that the petitioner was not appointed as ad hoc Principal of the College, though, he claims to have been appointed as per statute 13.20 of the First Statute of Kanpur University Act, which provides that in case of the post of Principal of an affiliated College falls vacant, the senior most teacher of he College shall act as Principal until a duly selected teacher assumes office. Statute 13.20 does not talk of any appointment on the post of Principal either on ad hoc or on officiating basis, but only permits a senior most teacher to act as Principal till a duly selected Principal assumes office. In our view, statute 13.20 would not cause an appointment on the post of Principal entitling the senior most teacher to claim salary for the said post. It only permits him to act and discharge duties on the said post for the time being. Even otherwise, after enactment of 1980 Act ad hoc appointment on the post of Principal at the best could have been made only in accordance with the procedure under 1980 Act and any other mode and manner is prohibited. Until and unless the petitioner would have been appointed in accordance with the procedure of 1980 Act, in our view, he could not have claimed salary on the post of Principal. A similar issue has been considered by us in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50997 of 1999, Sheo Shanker Tripathi v. Director of Education (Sanskrti) U.P. Allahabad and Ors. decided on 17th April 2007 and considering a similar provision, i.e., statute 12.22 of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, first Statute, this Court has observed as under:

At this stage, it is relevant to notice that Section 60-E of Chapter-II A of 1973 Act makes State Government liable for payment of salary to the teachers and employees of every college which is in grant in aid list of the State Government. Under Statute 12.21 of the First Statute it is provided that the teachers shall be given such grade of pay and governed by such other conditions of service as may be laid down from time to time in the Ordinances or in the orders, special or general, issued by the government concerned in that behalf. Statute 17.02 provides that except the case of appointment any vacancy caused by the grant of leave to a teacher for a period not exceeding 10 months, teachers of affiliated college shall be appointed on a written contract in the Form-1 or Form-2 set out in Appendix-D. Appendix-D Form-2 is meant for Principal of affiliated college, but the condition of service contained therein makes it clear that the same is referable to a substantive appointment made on probation. Therefore, under 1973 act read with Statutes and 1980 Act, except of substantive appointment, the only other way permissible for appointment to the post of Principal is an ad-hoc appointment in accordance with para 3 of 1983 Order and only thereafter one can claim salary for the post on which he is appointed and not otherwise. Thus we are of the considered opinion that unless a Principal is appointed on the post of Principal in accordance with law, he cannot claim salary. In the case in hand it is not disputed that the petitioner has not been appointed on the post of Principal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under para 3 of 1983 Order and therefore he cannot be said to be a validly appointed Principal entitled for salary of the said post.

17. There is another aspect of the matter, We do not find from the record that the management passed any order at any point of time appointing petitioner as officiating or ad hoc principal of the College. The petitioner has placed on record only a document showing that he took over charge of the office of Principal on 20.11.2002 and the letter dated 2.12.2002 issued by the University approving his working as Principal of the College. Therefore, at the best, the petitioner was allowed to discharge duties on the post of Principal where after he took over charge on 20.11.2002. Appointment to a post on ad-hoc or officiating basis is different than mere discharge of duties of a higher post. In other words, the petitioner was only given current duty charge in addition to the substantive post he held. In our view, this arrangement did not result in promotion to the post of which the current duty charge was handed over to the petitioner unless an order of promotion is issued by the management in favour of the petitioner.

22. Since the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Principal, therefore, the question of payment of salary of the said post would not arise. Even otherwise, as we have already noticed, the management did not make any ad-hoc appointment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under 1980 Act and therefore also, a mandamus for payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal cannot be issued. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was appointed by the management on officiating basis the said appointment being inconsistent to the procedure prescribed, it would not result in conferring any right upon him to claim salary on the basis of such illegal appointment, if any.