IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 182 of 2009 Shiv Kumar … Appellant Vs District Inspector of Schools Haridwar & others … Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 289 of 2001 (S/S), Shiv Kumar Vs District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar & others thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on account of the fact that one Ram Pal Singh proceeded on leave without pay. The petitioner was interviewed and he was appointed against the leave vacancy as Ram Pal Singh did not return even after a period of five years and his leave came to an end. Consequently, the services of the petitioner were ceased pursuant to the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the appointment letter. 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court and this Court after the scrutinizing of the entire record dismissed the petition vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2009. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred this special appeal, which has been placed before us for disposal. 2 5. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.C. Bisht, learned brief holder for the State/respondent and perused the record. 6. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Pramila Mishra Vs Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi & others reported in (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1329 in which, it has categorically stated that the teacher appointed by the Management of the institution on the adhoc basis in a short term vacancy which is subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or orders (on death, resignation, dismissal or removal of the permanent incumbent), cannot claim a right to continue. He has, however, a right to be considered alongwith other eligible candidates for adhoc appointment in the substantive vacancy if he possess the requisite qualification. 7. The learned Single Judge, thereafter has observed that the petitioner has never been appointed against the substantive vacancy and he was appointed on leave vacancy only. Hence, his case is not covered by the provision of Section 40 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006. The record further reveals that the petitioner was never considered by the Selection Committee, as no document has been filed by the petitioner in this regard and further he has not made any representation to the Government on this count. 8. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the 3 learned Single Judge of this Court. The special appeal being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant may approach to the State Government for the redressal of his grievance. (B.S. Verma, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 17.09.2009 ASWAL