JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is directed against an order dated 4.7.2002 by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary has been rejected.
3. Pandit Beni Singh Bharat Inter College, Bari Bheetar Gaon, District Kanpur Nagar is a duly recognized and aided institution. One Shiv Kumar Singh a L.T. Grade Games Teacher retired on 30.6.1990 causing a substantive vacancy on the post. It is alleged that as the Commission was not making any appointment on the post, the Management advertised it on its notice board and appointed the petitioner on adhoc basis vide order dated 28.12.1991, in pursuance of which, the petitioner joined. The entire papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 30.12.1991 for financial approval. However, no action was taken by the District Inspector of Schools and in the meantime one Jitendra Singh claiming his appointment on the said post preferred writ petition No. 14041 of 1993 for payment of salary. This petition after exchange of pleadings, was dismissed on 30.7.1997 holding that the appointment of one Ramji had been approved on the said post by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.1.1993. The petitioner claiming his appointment filed writ petition No. 2491 of 1999 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 9.2.1999 by which the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. But since the representation was not decided, he filed yet another writ petition No. 38140 of 2000 wherein an order was passed on 29.8.2000 directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, the claim has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Management had absolutely no power to make any appointment on a substantive vacancy especially when the post was not advertised in two daily newspapers.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the appointment of the petitioner is relatable to Section 18 read with Second Removal of Difficulties Order and since the appointment was prior in time to the decision of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management 1994 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1551, the District Inspector of Schools had no option but to grant financial approval.
5. A perusal of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order shows that it relates to the appointment on a short term vacancy. Admittedly, the vacancy on which the petitioner was allegedly appointed was a substantive vacancy. The appointment on a substantive vacancy is governed by the First Removal of Difficulties Order wherein post has to be advertised in two daily newspapers having wide circulation but the exercise is to be undertaken by the Educational Authorities and not by the Management. In Radha Raizada's case (Supra), the aforesaid position has been restated. In the said Full Bench the requirement of advertising the short term vacancy in two daily newspapers were firstly introduced by the said judgment and therefore the law with regard to short term vacancies would be prospective but so far as the law relating to appointment in a substantive vacancy is concerned, it declared it to be governed by the First Removal of Difficulties Order and which decision would operate retrospectively. Apart from the aforesaid, from the impugned order it is apparent that the case of the Management and the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools was that the petitioner was reappointed on 30.7.1997, i.e. after the decision in the case of Jitendra Singh (Supra), thus, even otherwise, the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio.
6. For the reason given above, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.