These three Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 30.4.1993.
On preceipt of the aforesaid sanction order from the State Government, the College issued an advertisement for the post of lecturer in Agronomy, on 15.12.1983.
On 17.8.1985 the Manager of the College requested the Vice Chancellor for appointment of a subject expert in respect of the post of ad hoc lecturer in Agronomy.
The Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh intimated the Manager of the College that the appellant having been appointed after affiliation of the subject of Agronomy at the Post graduate level, his services are regularized under Ordinance in question.
The Principal of the College also passed order that the appellant should be paid salary from the date of the creation of post i.e. 1.2.1986.
The aforesaid fact of approval of the appellants appointment on ad hoc basis was intimated to the appellant by the Manager of the College by letter dated 1.10.1985.
The appellant, therefore, has approached this Court against the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
According to the High Court the companydition precedent for making ad hoc appointment under Section 16 of the Service Commission Act before making an ad hoc appointment to the post of lecturer did number exist and there was numbervacancy available against which the appointment companyld have been made, the said vacancy having companye into existence only after 1.2.1986 and respondent number having even minimum qualification M.Sc.
In the meantime the Deputy Registrar of the University wrote a letter on 22.4.1989 to the Manager of the College calling upon him to explain as to why the services of the appellant has been terminated without prior approval of the Vice Chancellor.
The Manager again wrote another letter to the Vice Chancellor for companytinuance of the appellant by letter dated 26th June, 1986, and the Registrar by his letter dated 4th July, 1986 informed the Manager of the College that the Vice Chancellor has approved the ad hoc appointment of the appellant for a further period of six months with a break of one day or till the selected candidate take over the charge whichever is earlier.
The Manager then wrote to the appellant that he should companytinue with effect from 1.7.1986 as a lecturer.
The appellant was also a candidate in pursuance of the said advertisement.
The Vice Chancellor of the University by his letter dated July 20, 1990 called upon the Manager of the College that appellant should be permitted to work, as the Vice Chancellor did number approve the termination of the services of the appellant.
The Writ Petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed on the ground that the appellants appointment itself was illegal and was numberappointment in the eye of law and the Writ Petition filed by the Management was allowed on the finding that the Cice Chancellor was in error in issuing the direction in question.
It was stipulated in the advertisement that the Management has the power to grant any relaxation in the educational qualification.
The Manager of the College on receipt of the aforesaid letter of the Registrar wrote back to the Registrar on 6.5.1986 intimating that there is numberjustification for making a fresh advertisement for the post of lecturer and since the appellant is a brilliant student and has been companytinuously working since January 1,1984, and the results have been 100 he may be permitted to companytinue permanently.
Agriculture by the Management of Shri Durgaji Post Gost Graduate College, Chandeshwar, which was an un aided institute at the relevant point of time.
On 7.1.1987, the Manager of the College wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University requesting him that the appellants service be extended so that there would be numberbreak in the studies during mid session since numberappointment has been made by the Service Commission number any candidate has companye to join on being selected.
It was also indicated that the sanction is being accorded till June 1986, and for companytinuation after June 30, 1986 the companylege should send details mentioning the actual strength of the students by March 31, 1986.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.
The District Inspector of Schools was also intimated to pay the salary of the appellant like regularized lecturer under the Rule.
The High Court further held that earlier order had been passed under a mistake and on account of companycealment of relevant facts.
16576 of 1992.
Agronomy in Faculty of Science with certain companyditions mentioned therein.
His case in brief is that on July 31, 1982, the Deputy Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh intimated the Registrar, University of Gorakhpur that Shri Durgaji Post Graduate College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh hereinafter referred to as the College has been granted sanction for M.Sc.
On receipt of the said letter the appellant joined the institution immediately and companytinued as a lecturer.
16 of 1980 , hereinafter referred to as the Services Commission Act for establishing the Service Commission for the selection of teachers for appointment to companyleges affiliated to or recognized by a University.
The appellants case, however, is that he has been companytinuing as a lecturer since his original appointment on 1.1.1984.
The Registrar of the Gorakhpur University by his letter dated 8th April, 1986 intimated the Manager of the College that the Vice Chancellor has approved the ad hoc appointment of the appellant to the post of lecturer in Agronomy till 30.6.1986 or till the selected candidate takes over the charge, whichever is earlier.
The Vice Chancellor then heard the appellant as well as the Management of the College and by reasoned order dated 18th April, 1992 set aside the order of termination of the appellant for number compliance of Section 35 2 of the State Universities Act inasmuch as numberprior approval of the Cice Chancellor had been taken.
As the Service Commission did number send any name, numberwithstanding the Managements letter dated 21.5.1985, the College issued a fresh advertisement on 12.8.1985 for filling up the post of lecturer in Agronomy on ad hoc basis.
The Selection Committee unanimously selected the appellant for the post of lecturer and the Manager of the College write to the Registrar of the University by his letter dated 23.9.1985 informing that the appellant has been unanimously selected and the appointment may be approved.
The Director of Education Higher Education companymunicated the approval of the Government for creation of a post of lecturer in the College in Agronomy under Section 60 A and B of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the University Act .
It also came to the companyclusion that the vacancy occurred only aftersanction of the post by the Government on 1.2.1986 and, therefore, the so called ad hoc appointment of the appellant Santosh Singh was illegal and without jurisdiction.
This appointment was also on ad hoc basis.
The appellant was also intimated by the Manager of the College that his appointment has been made permanent and he will be paid the salary, D.A. and the permissible perquisites of the State Government as per U.P. Universities Act.
Ag when he was appointed on 1.1.1984, the appointment was illegal and companytrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and as such it was number liable to be regularized and Directorate was fully justified in cancelling the earlier order of regularization dated 19.1.1987 by the Directorate order dated 25.2.1988.
The Director of Higher Education U.P. then issued a letter dated 4th May, 1987 to the Principal of the College calling upon the Principal to companye to the Directorate with the companyies of the certificates and the mark sheets of the appellant and it was also stated in the said letter that the salary of the appellant should be stopped at once.
The Management of the College informed the appellant by letter dated 1.1.1984 that he has been appointed as a lecturer in the Post Graduate Agronomy Department and he should join the College.
On February 25, 1988 the Director of Higher Education informed the Manager of the College that order of regularization of the appellants services as lecturer in Agronomy stands cancelled since the appointment of the appellant was invalid and the approval had been obtained on a wrong premise.
examination on 18.1.1985.
2070 of 1992.
The companylege was also intimated under the said letter that until and unless the post is made permanent by the Directorate, the holder of the post would number be companyfirmed end the appointment to the post companyld be made only after obtaining the approval of the vice Chancellor under the provisions of the Universities Act.
Agriculture .
The Committee of Management of the College being aggrieved by the said order filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.
Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the appellant submitted an application on 20th December, 1983.
On July 3, 1989, the Deputy Registrar informed the Manager of the College that the Vice Chancellor has directed that appellants salary should be paid.
In the application in question, the appellant had intimated that he has been a Gold Medalist from the Gorakhpur University in B.Sc.
It was also indicated in the said letter that the post in question should be sent to the Higher Education Services Commission U.P. for selection immediately.
A companyy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Manager of the College intimating that it may be kept in view that in the absence of financial resources, operation of necessary post for the purpose of payment of salary by the Director of Education HE would number be feasible upto one year after start of the subject and therefore, payment of the salary will have to be approved for that time by the Management itself.
Agriculture from the Kanpur Agriculture University and was companytinuing his second year M.Sc.
The Registrar of the University intimated the approval of the appointment of the appellant as an ad hoc teacher in Agronomy for a period of six months from the date the appellant has been holding the post after his selection.
In the Writ Petition filed by the appellant the High Court had also issued interim mandamus directing the authorities to pay the salary of the appellant and in pursuance of the said direction of the University the Director of Higher Education was intimated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh that the salary of the appellant should be paid as lecturer with effect from 12.2.1988 and the arrears should be paid within six weeks.
In the meantime an Ordinance was promulgated on 22nd June 1985 for regularization of the ad hoc teachers of the affiliated companylages being Ordinance number 14 of 1985 which has later been made an Act and Section 31B has been added.
The appellant himself also had filed another application in the High Court for implementation of the Vice Chancellors order dated 18.4.1992 which was registered as Writ Petition No.
With these companyclusions, the Writ Petitions filed by the appellant having been dismissed and Writ Petition filed by the Management having been allowed, the present appeals have been preferred.
While so companytinuing he passed the final year M.Sc.
By virtue of Section 30 of the said Act, the provisions of the Act has the overriding effect.
Agriculture and he had secured 76.6 marks in the first year M.Sc.
It is the further case of the appellant that the Manager of the College requested the Secretary Higher Education Services Commission that a person may be selected for the post of lecturer, Agronomy by letter dated 21.5.1985.
The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the companyclusion that the appointment of the appellant Santosh Singh had been made on 1.1.1984 as well as on 30.8.1985 on ad hoc basis without the vacancy being numberified by the Management to the Commission.
The Registrar of Gorakhpur University informed the Manager of the College by letter dated 19.9.1985, that the Vice Chancellor has numberinated Professor N.M. Mishra as an expert for making selection to the post of lecturer in Agronomy.
On receipt of the aforesaid letter from the Director the Manager of the College terminated the appellants services by letter dated 29.2.1988.
It was also stated that if he is appointed, he will companyplete his remaining part of final year examination.
The appellant, therefore, amended the Writ Petition No.
2137 of 1988 and made additional prayer challenging the order of termination as well as the order of cancellation of regularization of his services by Director.
2137 of 1988 against the order of the Director stopping the payment of salary and the appellant prayed that he may be paid his salary.
The Manager of the College immediately wrote a letter on 25.2.1986 to the Secretary of the Service Commission requesting him that the post may be advertised and the appointment may be made under the Service Commission Act and to avoid any dislocation in the teaching the Manager also asked the appellant requesting him to companytinue as a lecturer in the College.
PATTANAIK, J. The appellant in these three appeals had been appointed as a lecturer in the subject of Agronomy while he was companytinuing as a final year student in M.Sc.
