# Laxmi Shanker Misra v. D.I.O.S. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 715
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-27
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 32 of 1998
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-shanker-misra-v-d-i-o-s-and-others-39921
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Ranvijay Singh
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri D.N. Misra
Sri S.N. Misra
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-
chapter II- Regulations, read with UP
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission Rules- 1983 rule 9- Adhoc
promotion
on
the
post
of
lecturer
Sanskrit-
petitioner/Appellant's
promotion - Disapproved by the DIOS on
the ground of beyond 40% quota-
subsequent approval of the Respondent
no. 4 by Direct appointment- held-
illegal- Neither the Management, nor the
Respondent no. 4. Nor the DIOS disputed
the eligibility of the appellant.

Held- Para 15

In view of the law laid down by Full
Bench of this Court in Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra), if a qualified
teacher is available for promotion, the
post cannot be filled up by direct
recruitment on adhoc basis. It is not
suggested
that
petitioner
was
not
qualified for promotion rather his claim
was resisted on the ground that 40%
quota being filled up, the petitioner is
not entitled for promotion and on that
basis management proceeded to make
adhoc
appointment.
Management
proceeded to make adhoc appointment .
Management's clear stand in its counter
affidavit to the writ petitioin was that
resolution passed in favour of the
petitioner- appellant on 4th September,
1993 giving him promotion as lecturer in
Sanskrit was under mistake since 40%
promotion quota was already filled up.
In view of the aforesaid, the adhoc
appointment of respondent no. 4 by
direct recruitment was void and contrary
to provisions of Removal of difficulties
order, 1981 and the law laid down by
Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada's case
(supra). The District Inspector of Schools
who
was
requested
to
approve
appellants promotion on adhoc basis was
under
misconception
that
approval
cannot be granted since 40% promotion
quota has been filled and in that
premises he proceeded to fill the post by
direct recruitment. The order of District
Inspector of Schools dated 24 May, 1988
approving the appointment by direct
recruitment of respondent no. 4 cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Laxmi Shanker Misra V. D.I.O.S. and others
715
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 32 of 1998

Laxmi Shanker Misra

...Appellant
Versus
District Inspector of Schools and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ch.N.A.Khan
Sri M.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ranvijay Singh
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri D.N. Misra
Sri S.N. Misra
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-
chapter II- Regulations, read with UP
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission Rules- 1983 rule 9- Adhoc
promotion
on
the
post
of
lecturer
Sanskrit-
petitioner/Appellant's
promotion - Disapproved by the DIOS on
the ground of beyond 40% quota-
subsequent approval of the Respondent
no. 4 by Direct appointment- held-
illegal- Neither the Management, nor the
Respondent no. 4. Nor the DIOS disputed
the eligibility of the appellant.

Held- Para 15

In view of the law laid down by Full
Bench of this Court in Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra), if a qualified
teacher is available for promotion, the
post cannot be filled up by direct
recruitment on adhoc basis. It is not
suggested
that
petitioner
was
not
qualified for promotion rather his claim
was resisted on the ground that 40%
quota being filled up, the petitioner is
not entitled for promotion and on that
basis management proceeded to make
adhoc
appointment.
Management
proceeded to make adhoc appointment .
Management's clear stand in its counter
affidavit to the writ petitioin was that
resolution passed in favour of the
petitioner- appellant on 4th September,
1993 giving him promotion as lecturer in
Sanskrit was under mistake since 40%
promotion quota was already filled up.
In view of the aforesaid, the adhoc
appointment of respondent no. 4 by
direct recruitment was void and contrary
to provisions of Removal of difficulties
order, 1981 and the law laid down by
Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada's case
(supra). The District Inspector of Schools
who
was
requested
to
approve
appellants promotion on adhoc basis was
under
misconception
that
approval
cannot be granted since 40% promotion
quota has been filled and in that
premises he proceeded to fill the post by
direct recruitment. The order of District
Inspector of Schools dated 24 May, 1988
approving the appointment by direct
recruitment of respondent no. 4 cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.)

1. Heard Chaudhary N.A. Khan,
Advocate appearing for the appellant and
Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned standing
counsel appearing for respondent no. 1.

2. This special appeal has been filed
by the appellant against the judgment and
order dated 16 December, 1997 passed by
learned single judge in writ petition no.
15741 of 1988 (Laxmi Shanker Misra vs.
District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad
and others) by which judgment the writ
petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
3. Facts of the case giving rise to
this special appeal, briefly stated, are Lal
Bahadur
Shashtri
Inter
College,
Dharwara, Allahabad (hereinafter referred
to
as
institution)
is
a
recognized
institution under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 receiving aid from
the State Government. The institution is
also
governed
by
UP
Secondary
Education Service Selection Board Act,
1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act).
Aditya Prasad Nautiyal who was working
as lecturer Sanskrit, retired on 30th June,
1983 causing a substantive vacancy on the
post of lecturer Sanskrit. The appellant
was working as confirmed L.T. grade
teacher in the institution appointed with
effect from 8th July, 1968. The appellant
who is Master of Art with Sanskrit
claimed promotion on the post of lecturer
caused due to retirement of Aditya Prasad
Nautiyal. The committee of management
passed a resolution on 4th September,
1983 promoting the appellant as lecturer
Sanskrit. The resolution was also passed
to the effect that approval of adhoc
promotion of the petitioner be obtained
from District Inspector of Schools in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
Removal of difficulties order. It appears
that resolution was forwarded to the
District Inspector of Schools. The District
Inspector of Schools did not grant any
approval to said promotion but raised an
objection vide letter dated 14 May, 1987
to the effect that according to Rule
promotion is made under 40% promotion
quota. It was stated that the resolution of
the committee of management for filing
the post by promotion appears to be in
excess of 40% promotion quota. The
details were asked by the District
Inspector of Schools as to which lecturers
are working under promotion quota and
which lecturers are working under direct
recruitment.
The
committee
of
management
in
between
passed
a
resolution for giving adhoc appointment
to respondent no. 4, Shaym Narain
Pandey, as lecturer Sanskrit on 24
January, 1987. The information of adhoc
direct recruitment of respondent no. 3 has
been made under section 18 of UP Act
No. 5 of 1982 who has already been
appointed on 1 November, 1986 which
may be approved. The District Inspector
of Schools by an order dated 24 may,
1988 approved the adhoc appointment of
respondent no. 4 under section 18 of UP
Act No. 5 of 1982 for the current
academic session up to 20 May, 1988.
The appellant filed a writ petition giving
rise to this special appeal challenging the
order dated 24 May, 1988 passed by
District Inspector of Schools. In the writ
petition the appellant prayed for a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents not
to interfere with the working of the
appellant as lecturer Sanskrit and also a
mandamus for payment of salary. By
prayer no. iv it was claimed that
mandamus
be
issued
to
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission,
Allahabad to promote the petitioner-
appellant on the post of lecturer in
Sanskrit on regular basis under 40%
quota. In the aforesaid writ petition,
counter affidavit was filed by the
Management as well as respondent no. 4,
Shyam
Narain
Pandey
including
supplementary counter affidavits and
supplementary rejoinder affidavits. The
writ petition was dismissed by learned
single Judge vide its judgement and order
dated 16 December, 1997 against which
the present special appeal has been filed.

4. Learned single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant recorded following findings. -
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Laxmi Shanker Misra V. D.I.O.S. and others
717
(i) 40%
promotion
quota
in
the
institution was already complete and the
post which fell vacant due to retirement of
Aditya Prasad Nautiyal on 30 June, 1983
was not under 40% promotion quota,
hence the appellant could not have been
promoted as lecturer Sanskrit.

(ii) There is nothing on the record to
indicate that the resolution dated 4
September, 1983 was adopted after
complying
with
the
mandatory
requirement of notifying the substantive
vacancy to the Commission. The first
intimation to the District Inspector of
Schools appears to have been made on 20
March, 1987. The petitioner was never
appointed even on adhoc basis as lecturer
on the vacancy caused due to retirement
of Aditya Prasad Nautiyal. He was simply
deputed to take up the Sanskrit subject in
Class XI and XII prior to 15 June, 1987.

5. The counsel for the appellant
challenging the judgment of learned
single Judge raised following submissions
in support of this appeal -

(i) For adhoc promotion as lecturer
Sanskrit 40% quota was not to be looked
into and all the posts in the institution
including the post of lecturer Sanskrit was
to be filled up only by adhoc promotion as
required by provisions of U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission (Removal
of Difficulties) order, 1981 and the issue
is fully covered by the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Km. Kumari
Radha Raizada and others vs. Committee
of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls
Inter Coillege and others, 1994 All. L.J.
1077.

(ii) The
adhoc
appointment
of
respondent no. 4 which was made by
direct recruitment was void and contrary
to the law laid down by Full Bench in
Km. Radha Raizada's case (supra).

(iii) The appellant having already given
promotion
by
resolution
dated
4th
September, 1983, the post was not vacant
to make any adhoc appointment by direct
recruitment.

6. Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned
standing counsel, opposing the above
submissions of counsel for the appellant,
has submitted that promotion could only
be made against 40% vacancies of
lecturer. 40% promotion quota in the
lecturer grade being already filled up,
appellant has no right to be promoted.
Learned standing counsel submitted that
in view of the fact that promotion quota
being already filled up no error was
committed by the respondents in making
adhoc appointment of respondent no. 4 by
direct recruitment.

7. We have heard the submissions of
both the counsel and perused the records
including the record of the writ petition.
There is no dispute of facts between the
parties.
The
submissions
raised
by
counsel
for
the
appellant
being
interrelated are being considered together.

8. Before proceeding to consider
relevant submissions of counsel for the
parties, it is appropriate to look into the
pleading and foundation which has been
laid by the appellant in the writ petition
for his claim. It was stated in paragraph 4
of the writ petition that petitioner was
appointed as L.T. grade teacher on 8th
July, 1968 and was confirmed on 8th July,
1969. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition,
it was claimed that petitioner is senior
most assistant Teacher in L.T. grade with
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
M.A. Sanskrit. The seniority list was
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition which shows that the name of
petitioner is at serial no. 2, however, the
person at Serial No. 1 is M.A. in Hindi
and hence the petitioner was senior most
L.T. grade teacher with M.A., in Sanskrit.
In paragraph 6 and 7 of the petition it was
stated that there were six posts of
lecturers in the institution and two posts
of lecturer come under 40% quota and are
to be filled up by promotion. In paragraph
10 of the writ petition, it was stated that
resolution was passed by committee of
management on 4th September, 1983
promoting the petitioner on the post of
lecturer in Sanskrit under Removal of
Difficulties Order, 1981- 82.It was stated
that committee of management authorized
the Manager to obtain approval of District
Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. It was
stated
that
with
effect
from
4th
September, 1983, the petitioner was
working as lecturer in Sanskrit. It was
claimed in paragraph 13 and 14 of the
writ petition that Manager sent reminders
dated 19th March, 1987 and 15th June,
1987 to the U.P. Secondary Education
Service
Commission,
UP
Allahabad
through the District Inspector of Schools.
In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it was
stated that the post of lecturer in Sanskrit
has been filled up by promotion of the
petitioner under Removal of Difficulties
Order, 1981-82. The approval order dated
24 May, 1988 giving approval to adhoc
appointment of respondent no. 4 was
challenged in the writ petition. Copy of
the
resolution
of
committee
of
management dated 4th September, 1983
was enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition. The said resolution unanimously
resolved that Manager may send all
relevant papers to the District Inspector of
Schools, Allahabad for approval of adhoc
promotion
of
the
petitioner
under
Removal of difficulties order within one
week. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is
claimed to be letter by Manager to the UP
Secondary
Education
Service
Commissioner for approving promotion
of the petitioner under 40% quota.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by
the Manager, Kedar Nath Tripathi, it was
admitted that resolution was passed on 4th
September, 1983 for promotion of the
petitioner on the post of lecturer Sanskrit
but it was claimed in paragraph 13 of the
counter affidavit that said resolution was
by mistake since vacant post was not a
post within 40% promotion quota. It was
stated that 40% promotion quota was
already filled up since Radhey Krishan
Pandey and Shyam Behari Sharma have
already been promoted under 40% quota,
Letters dated 19th March, 1987 and 15th
June, 1987 alleged to be written by
Manager was denied. The resolution dated
24th January, 1987 and the letter dated
24th January, 1987 were claimed to have
been sent by the Manager and it was
stated that respondent no., 4 has also
worked as lecturer Sanskrit. The order of
District Inspector of Schools dated 24th
May, 1988 was defended. It has been
stated that committee of management has
further passed resolutions on 15 May,
1988 and 31 July, 1988 continuing
respondent no. 4 as adhoc lecturer in
Sanskrit.

10. From the findings recorded by
learned single Judge as extracted above, it
is clear that learned single Judge has held
that 40% promotion quota has been filled
up since two lecturers, namely Radhey
Krishna Pandey and Sri Shyam Behari
Sharma
are
already
working
under
promotion quota. Learned single Judge
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Laxmi Shanker Misra V. D.I.O.S. and others
719
while recording the aforesaid finding has
considered the relevant materials on the
record. The said finding having been
recorded after considering the materials
on the record, we do not find any error in
the said finding. According to Uttar
Pradesh Secondary Education Service
Commission Rules, 1983 where any
vacancy is to be filled up by promotion all
teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade,
who possess the minimum qualifications
shall be considered for promotion to the
lecturer or L.T. grade. Under Chapter-II
Regulation 5, as it existed at the relevant
time, 40% posts of lecturer were required
to be filed up by promotion. In view of
the aforesaid, the prayer no. iv of the
appellant
praying
mandamus
to
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission, Allahabad to promote the
petitioner on the post of lecturer in
Sanskrit on regular basis under 40% quota
has rightly been refused by learned single
Judge.

11. The submission of counsel for
the appellant is to the effect that for adhoc
promotion of the petitioner as lecturer
Sanskrit 40% quota was not required to be
adhered to and every vacancy in the
lecturer grade has to be filled up by
Adhoc promotion first and only thereafter
the post can be filled up by direct
recruitment.
The
provisions
of
UP
Secondary
Education
Service
Commissioner (Removal of Difficulties)
order, 1981 in paragraph 4 (2) provides as
under -

"4 (2) Every vacancy in the post of a
teacher in lecturer grade may be filled by
promotion by the senior most teacher of
the institution in the trained graduate
(LT) grade."

Paragraph 5 sub para (1) of the said order,
1981 provides as under -

"5 (1) Where any vacancy cannot be
filled by promotion under paragraph 4,
the same may be filled by direct
recruitment in accordance with clauses
(2) to (5).

12. The full Bench in Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra) after considering
the provisions of UP Act No. 5 of 1982
and the Removal of Difficulties orders
had laid down that every vacancy in the
post of teacher in lecturer grade shall be
filled up by promotion of senior most
teacher and where any vacancy cannot be
filed up by promotion only then adhoc
appointment by direct recruitment can be
resorted. The Full Bench approved the
earlier Division Bench of this court in
Charu Chandra Tiwari v. D.I.O.S.
(1990) 1 UPLBEC 160. Paragraphs 37
and 38 of the Full Bench judgment in
Km. Radha Raizada's case (supra) are
extracted below:

"37. When a substantive vacancy has been
notified to the commission and duly
selected teacher is not available for
appointment, controversy has arisen as to
whether the management is required to
appoint
teacher
either
by
direct
recruitment or by promotion. The power
of adhoc appointment either by direct
recruitment or by promotion can be
exercised only when the management has
notified the substantive vacancy to the
Commission and the commission has
failed to recommend the name of suitable
candidate within one year from the date
of such notification or the posts of teacher
has actually remained vacant for more
than two months. Thus one of the two
conditions is sine qua non for enabling
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
the management to exercise the power to
appoint a teacher on adhoc basis, either
by promotion or direct recruitment in the
institution. If the condition is absent, such
power to appoint on adhoc basis either by
promotion or direct recruitment is not
available to the management of the
institution. In case the precondition is
found to be present, the management is
first required to fill up the substantive
vacancy by promotion on adhoc basis
from amongst the senior most teachers of
the institution. Paragraph 4 of the First
Removal of Difficulties order provides
that every vacancy in the posts of teacher
in lecturer grade shall be filled up by
promotion of the senior most teachers in
the institution in the trained graduate.
Similarly, every vacancy in the post of in
the trained graduate (grade) is to be filled
by promotion by the senior most teacher
of the institution from the trained
undergraduate grade (CT grade) (Now
we are not concerned with it since it is
reported abolished).

38. Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of
Difficulties order provides that where any
vacancy cannot be filled by promotion
under paragraph 4 of the order, same
may be filled by direct recruitment. Thus,
it is mandatory on the part of the
Management to first fill up the vacancy by
promotion on the basis of seniority alone.
This method has to be resorted to as the
teachers are available in the institution
and any other method of recruitment may
cause disturbance in teaching of the
institution which may affect the career of
students. Another reason why the vacancy
has to be filled by adhoc appointment by
promotion is that it is a short term
appointment in the sense that shortly a
duly selected teacher would be available
for appointment against the said vacancy.
So long the posts can be filled under
paragraph 4 of the order by promotion, it
is not open to the Management to take
resort to the power to appoint adhoc
teacher by direct recruitment under
paragraph 5 of the First Removal of
Difficulties order. In charu Chandra
Tiwari vs. District Inspector of Schools,
(1990) 1 UPLBEC 160: (1990 Lab IC
NOC
129)
it
was
held
that
the
management has to fill the vacancy by
adhoc promotion of a senior most teacher
of the same institution qualified for such
appointment and adhoc appointment
through direct recruitment is permissible
only in case no such teacher in institution
is available. I am, therefore, of the view
that the existing substantive vacancy
which
has
been
notified
to
the
Commission and the condition provided
under section 18 of the Act is present, the
vacancy has to be filled up first by
promotion from amongst senior most of
teacher in next lower grade.'

13. From the pleadings in the writ
petition, as noted above, and the content
of the resolution dated 4th September,
1983, it is clear that management has
resolved
to
seek
approval
of
the
petitioners' promotion on adhoc basis
from District Inspector of Schools,
Furthermore, the District Inspector of
Schools in his letter dated 14 May, 1987
had observed that promotion of the
petitioner appears to be beyond 40%
quota of promotion. Rule 9 of UP
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission Rules, 1983 which existed at
the relevant time provided approval by the
Commission of substantive promotion. It
is further to be noted that Full Bench in
the aforesaid judgment of Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra) had also held that
for adhoc promotion no approval is
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Laxmi Shanker Misra V. D.I.O.S. and others
721
required by District Inspector of Schools.
The Full Bench held that in case senior
most teacher has not been promoted,
adequate power is given to the District
Inspector of Schools under the U.P. High
School
and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment of salaries of teachers and other
employees) Act, 1971 to make enquiry in
this respect and stop salary. Paragraph 39
of the Full Bench in Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra) is extracted
below-

"39. There is another aspect of the matter
as to whether any approval or prior
approval of the District Inspector of
Schools
is
required
for
adhoc
appointment by promotion or not. Neither
the Act nor the provisions of Removal of
Difficulties Order provide for such prior
approval or approval by the District
Inspector of Schools in case of such
adhoc appointment by promotion. There
is another reason for not taking approval
of the District Inspector of Schools of
such
appointment
because
teacher
working in the institution is already
approved
and
thus
no
further
or
subsequent approval is needed for it and
only intimation to the District Inspector of
Schools is required to be given regarding
such appointment. See Ram Kripal
Pandey v. District Inspector of Schools,
Faizabad
(1989)
2
UPLBEC
98.
However, if it is found that senior most
teacher has not been promoted, adequate
power is given to the District Inspector of
Schools under the U.P. High School and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
salaries of teachers and other employees)
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
Payment of salary act) to make enquiry in
this respect. If found illegal, it goes
without saying that he can stop payment
of salary to such promotee."
14. From the material on the record,
it appears that District Inspector of
Schools was under misconception that for
adhoc promotion also 40% quota has to
be looked into and since 40% quota was
filled up, there is no occasion for approval
of adhoc promotion of the petitioner -
appellant. Learned single Judge in his
judgement has also held that since 40%
promotion quota was already filled up, the
petitioner- appellant was not entitled for
appointment as lecturer in Sanskrit on
adhoc basis. Last paragraph of the
judgment of learned single judge clearly
suggest
that
learned
single
Judge
considered and rejected the claim of the
petitioner for promotion on adhoc basis.
Last paragraph of the judgment of learned
single Judge impugned in this special
appeal is extracted below -

"In conclusion I find that the
petitioner was never appointed and could
not have been appointed as a lecturer in
Sanskrit on adhoc basis against the
vacancy caused on account of retirement
of Aditya Prasad Nautiyal on 30 June,
1983. The petitioner, therefore, is not
entitled to any reliefs claimed by him. The
petition is devoid of any merit and
substance and is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order passed in the present
petition stands vacated."

15. In view of the law laid down by
Full Bench of this Court in Km. Radha
Raizada's case (supra), if a qualified
teacher is available for promotion, the
post cannot be filled up by direct
recruitment on adhoc basis. It is not
suggested that petitioner was not qualified
for promotion rather his claim was
resisted on the ground that 40% quota
being filled up, the petitioner is not
entitled for promotion and on that basis
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Management proceeded to make adhoc
appointment. Management's clear stand in
its counter affidavit to the writ petition
was that resolution passed in favour of the
petitioner- appellant on 4th September,
1983 giving him promotion as lecturer in
Sanskrit was under mistake since 40%
promotion quota was already filled up. In
view
of
the
aforesaid,
the
adhoc
appointment of respondent no. 4 by direct
recruitment was void and contrary to
provisions of Removal of Difficulties
Order, 1981 and the law laid down by
Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada's
case (supra). The District Inspector of
Schools who was requested to approve
appellant's promotion on adhoc basis was
under misconception that approval cannot
be granted since 40% promotion quota
has been filled and in that premises he
proceeded to fill the post by direct
recruitment.
The
order
of
District
Inspector of Schools dated 24 May, 1988
approving the appointment by direct
recruitment of respondent no. 4 cannot be
sustained and is hereby quashed.

16. The next question which is to be
considered is that in view of the facts of
the present case to what relief the
appellant is entitled. As noted above,
adhoc promotion of the petitioner did not
require any prior approval of the District
Inspector of Schools. Learned single
Judge has also recorded a finding in the
order that there is nothing on the record to
prove that requisition was sent to the
District Inspector of Schools before 4th
September, 1983 on which date resolution
was passed in favour of the appellant.
Learned single Judge has found that for
the first time intimation to the District
Inspector of Schools was sent on 20
March 1987. In view of the aforesaid, it
will be appropriate that petitioner will be
held entitled for adhoc promotion from
the date when the District Inspector of
Schools approved the adhoc appointment
of respondent no. 4 i.e. 24th May, 1988.
In view of the fact that there is dispute of
fact as to who functioned during the
period as lecturer, it is appropriate that
petitioner- appellant be treated to be
adhoc lecturer in Sanskrit with effect from
24 May, 1988 but there being dispute
regarding working of the post, it is
appropriate to direct that petitioner-
appellant's salary may be fixed in lecturer
grade giving benefit of proforma fixation
and salary already paid to respondent no.
4 during the period he worked should also
not be recovered from respondent no. 4 or
from the petitioner- appellant if he has
been paid any salary in lecturer grade.
Salary of appellant in lecturer grade be
fixed within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of this order and
appellant be paid salary in lecturer's grade
from the date of this order.

17. In view of the foregoing
discussions, this appeal is partly allowed
to the extent as indicated above. Parties
shall bear their own costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1205 of
2002

Wasim Ahmad and others
...Applicants
Versus
Sri Ram Saroop Gupta and another

 ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh