Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22515 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vipeen Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools,Ballia And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This Court had issued notices in the matter and had called for a counter affidavit. As per the office report dated 26.11.2018, service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is treated to be sufficient. No counter affidavit has been filed.
Petitioners claim to have been appointed as Lecturer in History and Sanskrit in Sri Gandhi Mahavidyalaya Malay Nagar, Malap, Ballia. Appointments have been made exercising powers under section 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short, 'the Act of 1921') against the posts which are substantive in nature. Petitioners submit that procedure, as is contemplated in law, has been followed and therefore, action of the State - authorities, in denying financial approval to the petitioners' appointments, is bad in law.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that power under section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 would be available only where vacancies arise during continuance of education session and the same would be available only till the end of the education session. It is also stated that the State Government has already issued a Government Order prescribing conditions for engagement under section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 on 30.09.2017 and since appointments of the petitioners are not in accordance with such procedure, therefore, the authorities are under no obligation, in law, to approve the appointments of the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record.
Admittedly, posts, against which petitioners claim to have been appointed, are substantive vacancies and therefore, by virtue of section 16 (2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the only manner in which such appointments could be made is by direct recruitment through Secondary Service Selection Board. The power under section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 would clearly not be attracted in the facts of the present case; in as much as, the condition for invoking jurisdiction under section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 is not shown to exist in the facts of the present case. This Court in WRIT - A No. - 9003 of 2018 (Dhrub Raj Barnwal & 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others) has, otherwise, taken the view that such appointments would be de hors the Rules and therefore, no direction can be issued to grant financial approval.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, lastly, submits that the issue, as to whether appointment could be made by the Committee of Management under section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 against substantive vacancy, has been referred to a Larger Bench of this Court in WRIT - A No. - 6716 of 2018 (Mahesh Tiwari And 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
Considering the fact that the appointments of the petitioners are, otherwise, shown to be in teeth of section 16(2) of the Act of 1982, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction, as is prayed for in this petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of consideration of petitioners' claim consequent upon the outcome of the reference pending before the Larger Bench of this Court in Mahesh Tiwari (supra).
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Anil