IN TH E H IGH COURT OF UTTARANCH AL AT NAINITAL W RIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 20 0 2 Old No. 43533 of 1997 Rama Kant Srivastava, son of Sri A.P. Srivastava , resident of Arvind Marge, Dehradun. ………….…Petitioner Versus 1. District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun, 2. Accounts Officer of District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun. 3. Committee of Management, D.A.V. Intermediate College, Dehradun, through its Manager Sri Nagendra Swaroop. ……………Respondents. H on ’ble Ra jesh Ta n d on , J . Heard Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.10.1997 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1. Briefly stated, the petitioner is working as an LT grade teacher and getting the salary of LT grade teacher. The petitioner has submitted that the principal of the college namely Sri V.K. Verma retired on 30 th June, 1995 and therefore, a vacancy arose for the post of principal in the Institution. Petitioner has further submitted that on 31st July, 1990, two posts of lecturer and two posts of L.T. grade teacher were directed to be filled up by the District Inspector of Schools and therefore, the posts were advertise in the newspaper on 18 th August, 1990. Further it has come on the record that on 5th August, 1991, the principal of the Institution has sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools for approval of new appointees including the petitioner and further a reminder was sent on 19th August, 1991 for granting approval to newly appointed teachers and lecturers but the said order has not yet been complied with. However, the petitioner has been appointed as an ad-hoc teacher on 21st August, 1991, he joined the same on 22.11.1991 and the salary bill of the petitioner was also sent on 04.01.1992 before the District Inspector of Schools for his approval but no payment has been made. However, petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court on 04.02.1992 by filing the writ petition. The order was passed to the following effect:- “The learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four w eeks’ tim e to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and 3 for w hom he has accepted notices of the petition. The petitioner to serve respondent no. 4 w ithin tw o w eeks form today personally. Office extends all cooperation by preparing papers and the notices to state that the petition w ill be listed on the 24th of March, 1992, by w hich tim e the respondent m ay keep their counter affidavit ready on the basis that if appropriate and found convenient, the petition m ay be taken up for hearing and final disposal in accordance w ith the Rules of this Court. Mr. Arun Tandon has invited attention to the order passed by m y brother M.P. Singh, J. in the m atter of one of the Colleges as of the petition, w hose m atter stood on identical footing, according to Mr. Tandon. In the interest of com m ittee, I follow the sam e order and direct that the interim m andam us be issued directing respondent no.3 w hether to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period 22nd of November, 1991 to the 31st of Decem ber, 1991 and the salary accruing thereafter from m onth to month w ithin four w eeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order on them or to show cause.” The representation of the petitioner, however, has been rejected on the ground that the post of lecturer is not substantially vacant and are itself temporary vacant and therefore, promotion of the petitioner as physics lecturer is not possible. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is still working and he is entitled for the promotion. He has referred the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Onkar Singh v. Director of Schools, Varanasi (H.C.) A.L.R. 1992 (19) page 178, where it has been held:- “In the present case, there is no dispute that on the date of occurrence of vacancy, the petitioner possessed the m inim um qualification as also he has put in five years’ continuous service as Teacher in L.T. grade. The respondent cannot treat the petitioner’s appointm ent as illegal m erely because he has not put in five years’ continuous substantive service in L.T. Grade for ad hoc prom otion to Lecturer’s Grade. Thus, for ad hoc appointm ent under Section 18(1)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Comm ission and Selection Boards Act, neither U.P. Secondary Education Services Com mission Rules have laid dow n any such condition nor in the Rem oval of Difficulties Order, there is any requirem ent. The learned Standing counsel, how ever, pointed out out that under Paragraph 6 Sub-Clause (c) of the Rem oval of Difficulties Order, it has been laid dow n that appointm ent by prom otion under Prara 4 can be m ade only by candidate w ho has served the Institution in substantive capacity from before the date of comm encem ent of this order. On a reading of Sub- Clauses (c) of Paragraph 6 of the Rem oval of Difficulties Order, this argum ent is liable to be repelled. Sub-Clause (c) provides: “(C) the candidate sought to be appointed by prom otion under paragraph 4 m ust have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of com m encem ent of this Order.” It appears that this provision w as enacted in the Rem oval of Difficulties Order considering that after the Services Com m ission com es into operation there w ould be no requirem ent of ad hoc appointm ents. This provision did not cater for the contingency in respect of those ad hoc appointm ents w hich w ere m ade m uch after the enforcem ent of the Rem oval of Difficulties Order. In m y opinion, this provision w ould not be applicable to the present case and the ad hoc appointm ent of the petitioner has been m ade in accordance w ith law and the petitioner is entitled to his salary from the date of his appointm ent in case he has been perform ing his duties on the post. The petition is liable to succeed and is hereby allow ed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner’s salary on the post of Lecturer from the date of his appointm ent in case the sam e has not been paid to him and in case he has perform ed his duties on the post of Lecturer in Hindi. It is m ade clear that the appointm ent of the petitioner w ill last till a regularly selected candidate is sent for appointm ent or is otherw ise term inated in accordance w ith law . There shall be no order as to costs” In view of the above, the respondent no. 1 District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner is accordance with law afresh in the light of the order passed above. The order passed by the DIOS on 20.10.1997 therefore, in the circumstances may not come in the way while deciding the case of the petition afresh. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 25.11.2004 (RAJESH TANDON, J.) P.S.R.