Ramesh Chandra Singh vs District Inspector of Schools and Others

A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

Shri Khare contends that the petitioner has been continuing for more than a decade on ad hoc basis on a short term vacancy and is now sought to be discontinued on the ground that the vacancy has now been converted into a substantive vacancy on 31.06.2008. He contends that, as a matter of fact, no purpose would be served by disengaging the petitioner, inasmuch as, till regular selection is made an ad hoc appointment and engagement will have to be made in the interest of the institution. He contends that by disengaging the petitioner it is the students and the institution which will be put to a disadvantage and therebeing no source of any alternative arrangement it would be appropriate that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis till fresh selections are held either on ad hoc basis or on permanent basis. Shri Khare relies on the decision in the case of District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1670 (All).

Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that such contingency cannot be continued, inasmuch as, the vacancy has been converted into a substantive vacancy. There is no occasion for the petitioner to continue and the arguments advanced have already been considered by the another Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that for no reason whatever a person working on a short term vacancy can be continued after a vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy. He has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) ESC 118 (All)(DB).

Shri Khare in rejoinder submits that this Division Bench decsion has been rendered without taking notice of the fact that the Second Removal of difficulties Order has already been rescinded on 25.01.1999 and in view of this, the question as to whether a person working against a short term vacancy should continue or not should be judged in the light of the aforesaid fact. He contends that the aforesaid aspect appears to have escaped the notice of the subsequent Division Bench in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) and as such the matter may require to be decided by a larger Bench.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the issue in this matter is as to whether the petitioner can be continued on ad hoc basis, even after the vacancy has been converted into a substantive vacancy, or not. The subsequent Division Bench in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) has laid down the law after considering the impact of the judgment of Diwakar Lal case (supra). The distinction has been drawn in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the said decision. In view of this and in view of the observations made in paragraph 20 of the said decision, it would not be possible for this Court to refer the matter to a Larger Bench once the Division Bench has already taken a definite view after considering the impact of Diwakar Lal''s case. Accordingly, there is no option but to follow the reasoning given in the Division Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava''s case (supra).

The writ petition therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.