May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2All] Maheshwar Prasad Tiwari V. Joint Director of Education and others 17
the respondents therein to pay him salary
in the Lecturer’s grade since the date he
started functioning as such. The said writ
petition was disposed of by judgment and
order dated 18.9.1997 with the direction that
the petitioner would submit a representation
before the District inspector of Schools who
would examine as to whether ad-hoc
promotion of the appellant was valid in
accordance with the provisions of the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission
(Removal of Difficulties) Order.1981. It
appears that the attention of the learned Judge
was not invited to the amended Section 18
and the Rules providing for ad-hoc
appointment of teachers and that is why the
direction was to examine whether the ad-hoc
promotion was valid in accordance with the
provisions of The U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission (Removal of
Difficulties) Order 1981. The District
Inspector of Schools rejected the
representation vide order dated 16.3.1998.
Where upon the appellant filed another writ
petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
10770 of 1998 which was dismissed on the
ground that the appellant-petitioner had an
alternative remedy to approach the Regional
Deputy Director of Education under clause 7
of the U.P. Secondary Education Service
Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order,
1981 as amended by U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission (Removal of
Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1982. Thereafter
the matter was taken up in Special Appeal
wherein the question raised was that the rule
of 50% quota of promotion and direct
recruitment would not be applicable to ad-hoc
appointments. The Special Appeal Bench
declined to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge but disposed of the
appeal with the direction that the Regional
Deputy Director of Education will take note
of the contention and dispose of the matter in
accordance with law.
Gorakhpur who rejected the representation
and maintained the order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools though on a
different ground holding that the ad-hoc
promotion of the appellant was not in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and
the Rules referred to above. The Joint
Director clearly held that the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission (Removal of
Difficulties) Order 1981 would not apply and
instead the provisions in the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission Rules, 1995
would govern the appointment. Aggrieved
against the order dated 15.2.1999 passed by
the Joint Director of Education, the appellant
filed the writ petition which came to be
dismissed wide judgment and order under
challenge in this appeal. The learned Single
Judge was of the view that the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission Rules. 1995
which came into force on 8.5.1995 would
govern the present case and the Rule of 50%
quota of direct recruitment and promotion
would govern ad-hoc appointment as well.
Aggrieved the petitioner-appellant has filed
the instant appeal.
4. We have had heard Shri R.K. Ojha,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Standing Counsel representing the
respondents 1and 2.
5. The thrust of the submissions made by
Shri R.K. Ojha is that in the matter of ad-hoc
appointment the rule providing the 50%
vacancies would be filled by direct
recruitment and 50% by promotion as
visualised by Rule 10 of the Rules need not be
adhered to. Learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on the Division Bench
decision of this Court in Charu Chandra
Tiwari Vs. District Inspector of Schools,
Deoria and another 1 ; Full Bench decision in
Radha Raizada Vs. Committee of
Management 2 and the Supreme Court decision
3. Thereafter the matter was examined by
the Joint Director of Education 7 th Region,
1 1990(1) U.P.L.B.E.C.160
2 1994(3) U.P.L.B.E.C.1551