JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.1.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Kushi Nagar, respondent No. 1, whereby the financial approval for the appointment of the petitioner has been refused.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a short-term vacancy in L.T. grade arose on 6.7.1997 due to the ad hoc promotion on one Bhagwati Misra on the post of Hindi Lecturer in Nehru Intermediate College Semari-Sukrauli district Kushl Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-institution). On the very next day, i.e., 7.7.1997. It is alleged that the vacancy was notified on the notice-board of the respondent institution and allegedly an intimation was also sent to the District Inspector of Schools. It has also been stated that the said vacancy was also advertised in a local newspaper 'Deoria Doot' on 11.7.1997. Thereafter the selection is said to have been held on 17.8.1997 in accordance with the provisions of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The petitioner claims to have got the maximum quality point marks and was thus recommended by the management for appointment. The resolution of the Committee of Management recommending the appointment of the petitioner is said to have been passed on 27.8.1997 and the papers forwarded to the office of the District Inspector of Schools for approval, which were received on 29.9.1997. Since the approval was neither accorded nor refused by the District Inspector of Schools within seven days, the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as a L.T. grade teacher on 14.10.1997 under the provisions of Clause 2 (iv) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. It has further been stated that the petitioner joined his duties on 14.10.1997 itself. Since the District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 8.1.1998, had refused to grant financial sanction to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri S. P. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee of Management and have also perused the record.
4. In this case two questions arise for decision of this Court, namely :
(i) whether the Committee of Management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment on short-term vacancy after the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ; and
(ii) whether the appointment of the petitioner was validly made in accordance with law.
5. As regards the first question, in my view, the Committee of Management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment on short-term vacancy. The Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 specifically provides for the procedure for filling up the short-term vacancy and empowers the Committee of Management to do so. Under the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982) as well as First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 procedure for appointment on ad hoc basis on substantive vacancies has been provided. Short-term vacancies are to be filled up under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 which has been rescinded by insertion of Section 33E of the said Act which came into effect on 25.1.1999. As such 14.10.1997, the date when the appointment is said to have been made, in my view, the short-term vacancy could have been filled up by the Committee of Management of the institution under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.
6. As regards the second question, the promotion of Sri Bhagwati Misra on the post of Hindi Lecturer is said to have been made by the Committee of Management on 6.7.1997. Admittedly the approval for the same was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools only on 22.8.1997. However, it is stated that the vacancy was notified on the notice board of the respondent-institution on 7.7.1997 itself, even prior to the approval by the competent authority for the promotion of said Sri Bhagwati Misra. The notification on the notice board was thus made in anticipation of the vacancy which was to occur after the approval would have been granted by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner asserts that intimation was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, whereas no proof of the same has been furnished by him and only a copy of the notice said to have been issued on 7.7.1997 has been filed. As regards the advertisement in the newspapers, it has been stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that "vacancy was also advertised in daily newspaper published from District Deoria on 11.7.1997." However, no copy of the newspaper and advertisement has been filed and only a typed letter to one newspaper, namely, "Deoria Doot, Raghav Nagar, Deoria" for publishing the advertisement has been filed. It has been categorically stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State that "Deoria Doot" is not a widely circulated newspaper in the district of Deoria and the averment regarding the advertisement has been fabricated for the purposes of this case.
7. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km, Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., 1994 (2) ESC 345, while dealing with the ad hoc appointment of teachers against short-term vacancies, has held that "the advertisement of short-term vacancy on the notice board of the institution, according to me is in fact no notice to the prospective eligible candidates as no prospective candidate is expected to visit each institution to see the notice board for finding out whether any short-term vacancy has been advertised. Since the payment of salary to the teachers appointed against the short-term vacancy is the liability of the State Government, the advertisement of short-term vacancy must conform to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution which prohibit the State from doing anything whether by making rule or by executive order which would deny equal opportunity to all the citizens. The provision contained in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order which provides that the short-term vacancy shall be notified on the notice board of the institution, does not give equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates of the District, Region or the State to apply for consideration for the appointment against the said short-term vacancy. Such kind of notice is an eye-wash for the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution. This aspect, can be examined from another angle, If the notice of short-term vacancy, through the notice board of the institution is accepted, it will throw open the doors for manipulation and nepotism. Management of an institution may or may not notify the short-term vacancy on the notice board of the institution and yet may show to the authority that such vacancy has been notified on the notice board of the institution and may process the application of its own candidate for the appointment against the short-term vacancy. I am, therefore, of the view that the procedure for notifying the short-term vacancy should be the same as it is for the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The management after intimating such vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools advertise such short-term vacancy atleast in two Newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh in addition to notifying the said vacancy on the notice board of the institution and further the application may also be invited from the local employment exchange. Thus, the procedure provided for notifying the short-term vacancy should be the same as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Therefore, the procedure provided in sub-paragraph (3) (i, ii, iii, iv) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed, for making such appointment." The Full Bench, thus, categorically held that the procedure provided under paragraph 5 (2) of the First Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed even for appointments to be made on short-term vacancies. In the present case there is not even an assertion in the writ petition that the advertisement had been made in two widely circulated newspaper of the State or the district, or that application had been invited from the local employment exchange. The non-publication of the advertisement in proper newspapers, would thus vitiate the appointment. Even though appointments on short-term basis, are made by the Committee of Management but the payment of salary to such teacher is required to be made by the State, as such it would be necessary that a fair procedure is adopted for making such appointments so that the private Committee of Managements may not indulge in favouritism and nepotism. Without there being proper advertisement of any such vacancy, notice to all eligible candidates cannot be said to be given and thus the fairness of the appointment made by the Committee of Management shall always be in doubt and manipulation by the Management cannot be ruled out. It has also not been brought on record whether there were any other applications for the post in question, besides that of the petitioner. Even otherwise the Committee of Management completed the procedure for the appointment of short-term vacancy even before the ad hoc promotion of said Sri Bhagwati Misra had been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It was only after the approval had been accorded by the competent authority that a short-term vacancy could be said to have occurred for which appointment could have been made.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in District inspector of Schools. Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors.. 2000 (3) AWC 2182 : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 and Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools. Allahabad and Anr., 1998 (3) AWC 2150 : (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722, in support of his contention that even though the advertisement may not have been made in newspaper but that by itself will not invalidate the appointment. In both these cases this Court was dealing with the appointments having been made in the year 1992 and 1993, which was prior to the judgment of the Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada's case (supra).
9. Thus, in my view, in the facts of the present case, although the Committee of Management may have had the power in 1997 to make appointment on short-term basis, but since the procedure as required under law had not been followed by the respondent-institution, the refusal to accord financial approval by the impugned order dated 8.1.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be said to be illegal or wrong. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.