Harish Chandra vs District Inspector of Schools and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29th December, 1992 (Annexure 2 to this writ petition). The appointment of the Petitioner was made by the Committee of Management on ad hoc basis till the Commission makes a regular selection.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is not being paid his salary since then. The U.P. Secondary Education and Service Selection Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982) was amended by the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992 and the relevant part of the amended provisions of Section 18 reads as under:

Ad hoc teacher: (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher, on purely ad hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section.

(2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (9).

(3) * * * *

(4) * * * *

(5) * * * *

(6) * * * *

(7) * * * *

(8) The District Inspector of Schools shall on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be. after determining the vacancies under Sub-section (7), invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made there under for ad hoc appointment to the post of teachers, other than Principal or Headmasters in such manner as may be prescribed.

(9)(a) For each district, there shall be a Selection Committee for selection of candidate for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising;

(i) District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman;

(ii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari;

(iii) District Inspectress of Girls'' Schools and where there Is no such Inspectress. the Principal of the Government Girls'' Intermediate College and where there are more than one College, the senior-most Principal of such Colleges and where there is no such College, the Principal of the Government Girls'' Intermediate College as nominated by the State Government.

(b) The Selection Committee constituted under Clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the institutions and recommend their names to the Management for appointment under Sub-section (2).

(c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the institutions shall be such as may be prescribed.

Thus, it is clear from the amended provisions quoted hereinabove that the ad hoc appointment of a teacher has to be made strictly adhering to the procedure provided under the said Act and as Section 16(2) of the Act No. 5 of 1982 provides that any appointment made in contravention of the statutory provisions of the said Act shall be void.

Even if an authority makes an illegal appointment, that cannot be enforced and is not justifiable. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh and Others, , the Apex Court has observed as under:

In our opinion where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status.

In view of the above, no equitus relief can be granted to the Petitioner which goes contrary to the statutory provisions as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madamanchi Ramappa and Another Vs. Muthalur Bojjappa, .

Thus, this writ petition is dismissed having no merit.

However, if the Petitioner is aggrieved, he may file the suit against the Committee of Management without impleading the State instrumentality for the recovery of the said amount as the State cannot be held responsible for such an illegal and void appointment.