JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner alleges to have been appointed on 2.9.1996 in the post of Lecturer. A copy of the said appointment letter is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It does not disclose as to on which subject or in which post the petitioner was appointed. The approval was obtained by the Committee of Management from the Deputy Director, 1st Region, Meerut through a letter dated 27.12.1995 being Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Approval to the appointment of the petitioner was accorded through the said letter with the condition that the appointment was being made on the basis of financial sanction granted by the Accountant, in the office of the District Inspector of Schools subject to the condition that in case there is any suppression of fact or irregularity, in that event the approval would be ineffective. By a letter dated 25.10.1996, the Accountant in the office of the District Inspector of Schools was informed by the District Inspector of Schools that the appointment in the post of Lecturer appears to be illegal and, therefore, payment of salary may not be made. Thereafter, by an order dated 1.7.1998. the Manager of the School had terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that since no salary is being paid from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, her appointment was cancelled with immediate effect. By an order dated 3.9.1998 contained in Annexure-5, the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur had held that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid since she was sought to be appointed in the vacancy created in the post of Lecturer in Civics on account of promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta, a Lecturer in Civics as officiating Principal, while the petitioner was M.A. in Hindi and did not possess the qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. S. Chauhan contends that there was a post created in Hindi, against which the petitioner was appointed as has been contended in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. But from the appointment letter, it does not transpire that the appointment was made against the post of Lecturer in Hindi as has been created. The appointment letter is thoroughly silent as to on which post she was appointed. Whereas the approval shows that the approval was granted to the appointment in the vacancy created due to promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta to the post of officiating Principal, till the said Smt. Kiran Gupta is reverted to the said post. Whereas Mr. Chauhan submits that the post of Lecturer in Civics was converted into Hindi on account of necessity of the teaching in school.
This proposition has been opposed by Mr. S. C. Srivastava, learned standing counsel on the ground that a particular post since been created cannot be converted or the subject can be changed. At best, if there is no necessity of the post, the same could be surrendered and a new post could be created.
In the present case, there was no question of surrendering the post since the promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta was in an officiating capacity subject to her reversion upon the regular appointment in the post of Principal. This contention is also contradicted by the statement of Mr. Chauhan to the extent that the post of Lecturer in Hindi was also created. Both these contentions cannot go together. Either the petitioner has to be appointed in the post of Lecturer in Hindi so created or in the post of Lecturer in Civics against a short-term vacancy on account of promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta, a Lecturer in Civics as officiating Principal, while the petitioner was M.A. in Hindi. In any event, such post can be created, or surrender can be accepted, by the District Inspector of Schools. The Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools cannot claim to have any power or jurisdiction to convert or change or alter a post. He is only entitled to grant financial sanction.
3. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was M.A. in Hindi and did not possess requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in Civics for which M.A. in Civics is the requisite qualification. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being -appointed even on ad hoc basis against short-term vacancy against the post of a Lecturer in Civics. In absence of any qualification, she cannot be appointed at all. Her appointment was approved subject to the condition that in case any fact is suppressed, the same would render the approval ineffective. It appears that certain facts were suppressed while the approval was obtained. After the said facts were brought to light. It was open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders.
Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order contained in Annexure-5 holding that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Lecturer in Civics in the short-term vacancy whereof she was appointed.
4. Mr. Chauhan had relied on a decision in the case of Y. N. Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 484, in support of his contention that even if a person did not possess teaching experience, ad hoc appointment cannot be refused provided he possesses the requisite qualification and such qualification has to be decided on the basis of the date of vacancy. The said decision does not help Mr. Chauhan for the simple reason that it was relating to the promotion of a seniormost teacher in the resultant vacancy. Whereas, the petitioner In the present case, was appointed through direct recruitment in the resultant vacancy. He was not promoted on account of her being the seniormost teacher. Therefore, on facts this case is wholly distinguishable. Then again in the said case, it was held that in case of ad hoc appointment by promotion of the seniormost teacher holding a post of a different subject cannot be denied simply because he did not have teaching experience on the subject provided he has requisite qualification for being appointed teacher in the particular subject, in respect whereof a vacancy had occurred. In the said case, the seniormost teacher was holding the post of Physical Training Teacher but had possessed the requisite qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics, which was an admitted fact as mentioned in the said decision. Thus, the facts of the said case being distinguishable, the ratio decided therein for the reasons given above, cannot be attracted in the present case.
5. Mr. Chauhan had also relied upon a decision in the case of D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd., 1993 (3) SCC 259, in support of his contention that service cannot be terminated without giving opportunity of hearing. In the present case, the petitioner was not given any opportunity. Thus, there was violation of principles of natural justice and on this score, the order of termination is liable to be set aside and quashed.
6. There is no doubt about the principle enunciated in the said decision as contended by Mr. Chauhan. But in the present case, Mr. Chauhan has not been able to show anything that the petitioner had the requisite qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics. The facts are almost admitted. The petitioner was an M.A. in Hindi and did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics. Therefore, even if any opportunity is given to her, on the admitted position, she cannot show anything which could change the situation. Therefore, such an opportunity will be wholly infructuous and ineffective on the admitted position as revealed in the present case. It is also not contended by Mr. Chauhan that her appointment was approved in a newly created post in Hindi agatnst a substantive vacancy. The approval contained in Annexure-1 has also not been challenged by Mr. Chauhan. On the other hand, the entire foundation of the case was based on the approval contained in Annexure-1, wherein the petitioner's appointment was approved against the vacancy created due to officiating promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta holding the post of Lecturer in Civics subject to the conditions mentioned hereinbefore added with the fact that the petitioner has not claimed that she had the requisite qualification for being appointed as Lecturer in Civics. Therefore, giving further opportunity to the petitioner will be a futile exercise. For these reasons, the principle enunciated in the case of D. K. Yadav (supra) cannot be attracted.
7. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. No cost.