Prabhu Dayal and Another vs District Inspector of Schools and Others

R.A. Sharma, J.—Appellants here claim to have been appointed as ad hoc teacher vide appointment letter dated June 1, 1992 in Arya Janta Inter College, Paigu district Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as the College). Their appointments not having been approved by the District Inspector of Schools (herein after referred to as the D.I.O.S.), they filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14-5-1993 on the ground that the conditions laid down in Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act| not being satisfied, no appointment of the Appellants as teacher could have been made. Being aggrieved, the Appellant have filed this appeal.

It appeals that although vacancies occurred on April 2, 1990, 30th June, 1990 and 12th February 1912 but the notification was sent to the Secondary figuration Service Commission by the letter dated April 21, 1992. Adhoc-appointment u/s is can be made by the managing committee of no institution, If the Commission has failed to recommend the names of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher within one year from the date of notification or the plot such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. In the instant case the vacancies were notified by letter dated April 21, 1992, whereas appointment of the Appellants was made on June 1, 1992. The period of one year contemplated by Clause (a) of Section 18 of the Act, had not expired till the date of appointment. Section 18(1)(a) will not he applicable to the instant case. But vacancies had occurred on three dates, viz April 2. 1988, June 30, 1999 and February 12, 1992. As mentioned above, the appointment of the Appellants was made on June 1, 1992, which is two months after the vacancies had occurred in the institution and the posts were, as such, lying vacant for more than two months. Presuming two months period referred to under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or Section 18 of toe Act is to be counted from the date of notification, even then two months'' period had passed, because the notification was made by letter. dated April 21, 1992 The appointment of the Appellants thus falls under Clause (b) of Section 18 After period specified under Clauses (a) or (b) had expired it was open to the management to make appointment at any time. It was not obligatory on It to appoint a teacher Immediately after the vacancies had occurred The appointments of the Appellants cannot be declared to be had merely because they were not made immediately after the vacancies had come into existence.

u/s 18(1)(b) the appointment can be made if the post of a teacher, which has been notified to the Commission, has remained vacant for more than two months. What is required to be done after two months it the appointment. issuing advertisement inviting applications for such appointment within the period of two months, is not prohibited As the process of selection on the basis of which the appointment is to be made, is likely to take time, there is no prohibition in the law against inviting applications for such appointment even before expiry of two months.

Learned Counsel for parties have also rained various other questions, but as they have not been decided by the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary to enter into those controversies. As we are remanding the case it will be open to the parties to raise all such pleas before the learned Single Judge.

For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment dated 14-5-1993 of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The case is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law.