# Manvendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-12-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15991 of 1999
- **Bench:** Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manvendra-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40841
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri Praveen Kumar
Sri Anil Kumar
S.C.

Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service Selection Boards (Amendment)
Act-1995-(U.P. Act No. 16 and 18-Short
term
vacancy-caused
in
L.T.
Grade
teacher-intimation
send
by
the
management to the D.I.O.S. as well as to
board-on failure to make appointmentmanagement by advertising the short
term vacancy on 3.8.98-by letter dated
10.8.98 appointed the petitioner and
sought
approval
from
D.I.O.S.-on
inaction-petitioner
approached
under
writ
jurisdiction-held-procedure
provided under section 18 not followed
by the management-adhoc appointment
being contrary to Rule-confer no rightfinancial approval rightly refused.

Held: Para 10

Thus, once Section 16 of the Act was
made subject to the provisions Section
18 of the Act by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1995
and Section 18 of the Act also provided
for a detailed procedure to be followed
while making appointments on ad hoc
basis it became imperative that the ad
hoc appointment in the present case
should have been made in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act. Admittedly the procedure provided
for in Section 18 of the Act was not
followed
by
the
Committee
of
Management.
The
Committee
of
Management itself had advertised the
post
and
the
Selection
Committee
constituted
by
it
had
made
the
recommendation. The appointment of
the petitioner as an ad hoc teacher was,
therefore, contrary to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act. It is, therefore,
void and cannot confer any right upon
him. The relief claimed for in this petition
to
grant
financial
approval
to
the
appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade),
therefore, cannot be granted.
Case law discussed:
1994 (3) UPLBEC-1551
1996 (10) SCC-62

## Text

276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
petitioners individually by this Court.
Therefore,
the
writ
petitions
stand
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

However, no order is passed as to
costs.

Office is directed to keep a copy of
this judgement in the file of all the writ
petitions decided with this writ petition.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15991 of 1999

Manvendra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri Pankaj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Praveen Kumar
Sri Anil Kumar
S.C.

Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service Selection Boards (Amendment)
Act-1995-(U.P. Act No. 16 and 18-Short
term
vacancy-caused
in
L.T.
Grade
teacher-intimation
send
by
the
management to the D.I.O.S. as well as to
board-on failure to make appointmentmanagement by advertising the short
term vacancy on 3.8.98-by letter dated
10.8.98 appointed the petitioner and
sought
approval
from
D.I.O.S.-on
inaction-petitioner
approached
under
writ
jurisdiction-held-procedure
provided under section 18 not followed
by the management-adhoc appointment
being contrary to Rule-confer no rightfinancial approval rightly refused.

Held: Para 10

Thus, once Section 16 of the Act was
made subject to the provisions Section
18 of the Act by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1995
and Section 18 of the Act also provided
for a detailed procedure to be followed
while making appointments on ad hoc
basis it became imperative that the ad
hoc appointment in the present case
should have been made in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act. Admittedly the procedure provided
for in Section 18 of the Act was not
followed
by
the
Committee
of
Management.
The
Committee
of
Management itself had advertised the
post
and
the
Selection
Committee
constituted
by
it
had
made
the
recommendation. The appointment of
the petitioner as an ad hoc teacher was,
therefore, contrary to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act. It is, therefore,
void and cannot confer any right upon
him. The relief claimed for in this petition
to
grant
financial
approval
to
the
appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade),
therefore, cannot be granted.
Case law discussed:
1994 (3) UPLBEC-1551
1996 (10) SCC-62

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.)

1. This petition has been filed for a
direction upon the District Inspector of
Schools, Aligarh to accord financial
approval to the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
(L.T. grade) in Hira Lal Barasaini Inter
College, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to
as the ''College') and to pay him salary
regularly including arrears w.e.f. 10th
August, 1998.
1 All] Manvendra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
277
2. The petitioner claims that in the
aforesaid College, which is a recognised
Government aided College, a number of
vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher
(L.T. grade) were lying vacant but despite
intimation having been sent by the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
College, the District Inspector of Schools,
Aligarh
and
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Commission and
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as
the "Secondary Education Board") did not
make
any
appointment.
In
such
circumstances
the
Committee
of
Management
decided
to
fill-up
the
existing short term vacancies of Assistant
Teacher (L.T. grade) on ad hoc basis by
issuing
an
advertisement
in
the
Newspaper "Parabada Dainik" dated 3rd
August, 1998. In response to the aforesaid
advertisement the petitioner and other
candidates submitted applications and on
the basis of the recommendations made
by the Selection Committee the petitioner
was appointed as Temporary Assistant
Teacher (L.T. Grade) on ad hoc basis by
means of the letter dated 10th August,
1998. The petitioner thereafter joined the
services on 10th August 1998 and by
means of the communication dated 24th
October,
1998
the
Committee
of
Management of the College sought
approval of the appointment of the
petitioner from the District Inspector of
Schools, Aligarh. However, when no
communication was received from the
office of the District Inspector of Schools,
the petitioner filed this petition on 17th
April, 1999 when the matter was
adjourned on the request made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that he
desired to file a supplementary affidavit
disclosing the Newspapers wherein the
advertisements
were
published.
A
supplementary affidavit was filed on
behalf of the petitioner mentioning therein
that the advertisement was also published
in the Newspaper "Dainik Prakash" dated
3rd August, 1998.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the Assistant District Inspector of
Schools, Aligarh on behalf respondent
nos. 1, 2 & 3. It has been pointed out that
the appointment had not been made in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
and the Removal of Difficulties Order and
was also contrary to the decision of this
Court given in the case of Radha Raizada
and
others
vs.
Committee
of
Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls
Inter College & Ors,. (1994) 3 UPLBEC
1551 as the vacancy was not advertised in
two Newspapers having vast circulation
in the State but was advertised only in
local Newspapers. It was further pointed
out that it was imperative for the College
to have intimated the Board about the
appointments to be made on the vacancies
but that had not been done. In such
circumstances, it was pointed out that the
petitioner was not entitled to any relief
from this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents
and have perused the material available
on record.

5. Section 18 of The Uttar Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission and Selection Boards Act,
1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act')
has been amended time and again and in
order to appreciate the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner it may
be pertinent to refer to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act and to the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Education
Services
Commission
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981
which is more popularly known as the
First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.
Section 18 of the Act as amended by U.P.
Act No.24 of 1992 provided that where
the management notified a vacancy to the
Commission in accordance with the
Provisions of the Act, and the post of such
teacher actually remained vacant for more
than two months, the management could
appoint
by
direct
recruitment
or
promotion a teacher, on purely ad hoc
basis, in the manner provided for in the
section. Subsequently amendments were
made in the Act by U.P. Act No. 1 of
1993 but it was provided that the
Amendment Act shall come into force on
such date as the State Government may
by notification appoint and different dates
could
be
appointed
for
different
provisions. Under section 11 of the U.P.
Act No. 1 of 1993 a new Section 16 was
substituted for Section 16 of the Act and it
was stated that notwithstanding anything
to
the
contrary
contained
in
the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the
Regulations made there under but subject
to the provisions of Sections 21-B, 21-C,
21-D, 33, 33-A, 33-B, every appointment
of a teacher shall, on or after the date of
commencement of the Amendment Act,
be made by the management only on the
recommendation of the Board. What is
important to be noted under the amended
Section 16 is that reference to Section 18
was omitted with the result that Section
16 was no longer subject to Section 18 of
the Act. It may also be pertinent to state
that under Section 13 of U.P. Act No. 1 of
1993, Section 18 of the Act was omitted.
Under the notification dated 7.8.1993 it
was provided that 7th of August, 1993
would be the date on which the U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1993 shall come into force
except Section 13. Thus Section 16 of the
Act came into force w.e.f. 7.8.1993 but
Section 18 still continued since Section 13
of U.P. Act No.1 of 1993 did not come
into force. Thus a situation had arisen
where Section 16 of the Act was no
longer subject to Section 18 of the Act
meaning thereby that no appointment on
ad hoc basis could be made under Section
18 of the Act. This matter came up for
decision before a Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Radha Raizada and Others
vs.
Committee
of
Management,
Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College &
Ors. (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 and the
Court clearly held as follows:-

"Thus after omission of Section 18
from Section 16 no ad hoc appointment is
permissible under Section 18 and if made,
would be void under sub-section (2) of
Section 16 of the Act."

6. The Full Bench, however,
examined the problem that if no ad hoc
appointment of a teacher could be made
under Section 18 of the Act, then whether
it was permissible to appoint a teacher on
ad hoc basis under the First Removal of
Difficulties Order, since the Removal of
Difficulties Order still continued. The
Court noticed that a perusal of Section 16
would show that it was still subject to
Section 33 of the Act, which empowers
the Government to issue Removal of
Difficulties Order. The Court, therefore,
held that since the Removal of Difficulties
Order had been issued under Section 33
of the Act, an ad hoc appointment, either
by direct or by promotion under the
Removal of Difficulties Order would be a
valid appointment. It was also observed
that if the management had made an ad
hoc appointment without following the
procedure laid down in paragraph 5, the
1 All] Manvendra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
279
District Inspector of Schools can stop
payment of salary to such a teacher.

The Court held as follows:-

"Omission of Section 18 has not yet
been enforced with a result the conditions
precedent
namely
notification
of
substantive vacancy to the Commission
and further the post has remained vacant
for more than two months are still there
and if these two conditions are fulfilled, it
is only then the management can appoint
ad hoc teacher either by promotion or by
direct recruitment in accordance with the
procedure laid down in the First Removal
of Difficulties Order."

7. The Supreme Court also had an
occasion to examine the validity of the ad
hoc appointments which were not made in
accordance with the procedure provided
for under paragraph 5 of the First
Removal of Difficulties Order in the case
of Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others
Vs. State of U. P. and others reported in
(1996) 10, SCC 62 and it was clearly held
that any ad hoc appointment not made in
accordance with paragraph 5 of the First
Removal of Difficulties Order is an illegal
appointment and is void and confers no
right on the appointee. It may be useful to
reproduce a passage from the judgment
made in the context of paragraph 5 of the
First Removal of Difficulties Order and it
is as follows:-

"It is an inbuilt procedure to avoid
manipulation and nepotism in selection
and appointment of the teachers by the
management to any post in an aided
institution. It is obvious that when the
salary is paid by the State to the
Government aided private educational
institutions, public interest demands that
the teachers' selection must be in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act read with the First 1981,
Order".

8. The Act was further amended by
the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Services Selection Boards (Amendment)
Act, 1995 (U. P. Act No. 15 of 1995). The
Amendment Act came into force w.e.f.
28.12.1994. The relevant amendments
caused by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1995 which
are relevant for the purposes of the
controversy involved in the present
petition are the amendments made in
Sections 16 and 18 of the Act. Section 16
of the Act was again made subject to
Section 18 of the Act. The relevant
portions of Section 18 of the Act are
reproduced below:-

"18. Ad hoc teachers.- (1) Where the
Management has notified a vacancy to the
Commission in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 10 and the post of a
teacher actually remained vacant for more
than two months, the Management may
appoint
by
direct
recruitment
or
promotion a teacher on purely ad hoc
basis, in the manner hereinafter provided
in this section.

(2) A teacher other than a Principal
or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by
direct recruitment may be appointed on
the recommendation of the Selection
Committee referred to in sub-section (8).

(3) A teacher other than a Principal
or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by
promotion, may in the prescribed manner
be appointed by promoting the senior
most
teacher,
possessing
prescribed
qualifications-
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
(a)
in the trained graduate's grade, as a
lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in
the lecturer's grade;
(b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade,
as teacher in the trained graduate's
Grade, in the case of a vacancy in
the Trained graduate's grade.
.............
(6) For the purposes of making
appointments under sub-sections (2) and
(3), the Management shall determine the
number of vacancies, as also the number
of vacancies to be reserved for the
candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward
Classes
of
citizen
in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and, as soon
as may be thereafter, intimate the
vacancies
to
be
filled
by
direct
recruitment to the District Inspector of
Schools and if the Management fails to
intimate the vacancies and the post of a
teacher has actually remained vacant for
more than three months, the District
Inspector of Schools may, subject to such
directions as may be issued by the
Director and after verification from such
institution or from his own record,
determine such vacancies himself.
(7) The District Inspector of Schools
shall,
on
receipt
of
intimation
of
vacancies or as the case may be, after
determining the vacancies under subsection (6), forward the same to the
Deputy Director of Education in charge of
the Region, who shall invite applications
from the persons possessing qualifications
prescribed
under
the
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 or the regulations
made thereunder, for ad hoc appointment
to the post of teachers other than Principal
or Headmaster in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(8) (a) For each region there shall be a
Selection Committee for selection of
candidates for ad hoc appointment by
direct recruitment comprising-
(i) Regional
Deputy
Director
of
Education;
(ii) Regional
Deputy
Director
of
Education (Secondary);
(iii) Regional
Assistant
Director
of
Education (Basic).

The Regional Deputy Director of
Education who is senior shall be the
Chairman.
(b) The Selection Committee constituted
under clause (a) shall make selection of
the candidates, prepare a list of the
selected candidates, allocate them to the
Institutions and recommended their names
to the Management for appointment under
sub-section (2).

(c) The criteria and procedure for
selection of candidates and the manner of
preparation of list of selected candidates
and their allocation to the Institution shall
be such as may be prescribed.
(9) Every appointment of an ad hoc
teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease
to have effect from the date when the
candidate
recommended
by
the
Commission joins the post."

9. It may also be pointed out that
minor amendments were again made in
Section 18 of the Act by U.P. Act No.25
of 1998 but they are not relevant to the
controversy involved in this petition. In
sub-section
(1),
for
the
word
"Commission", the word "Board" was
substituted and in sub-section (a), for the
Clause "A" the following Clause was
substituted namely:-
1 All] Mehndi Hasan V. D.D.C., Siddharth Nagar and others
281
"(a) For each region there shall be a
Selection Committee for selection of
candidates for ad hoc appointment by
direct recruitment comprising -
(i) Regional Joint Director of Education
(Secondary);
(ii) Regional
Deputy
Director
of
Education (Basic);
(iii) Regional
Assistant
Director
of
Education (Basic);

The Regional Joint Director of
Education shall be the Chairman."

Further in sub-section (9), for the
word "Commission", the word "Board"
was substituted.

10. Thus, once Section 16 of the Act
was made subject to the provisions
Section 18 of the Act by U.P. Act No. 15
of 1995 and Section 18 of the Act also
provided for a detailed procedure to be
followed while making appointments on
ad hoc basis it became imperative that the
ad hoc appointment in the present case
should have been made in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act. Admittedly the procedure provided
for in Section 18 of the Act was not
followed
by
the
Committee
of
Management.
The
Committee
of
Management itself had advertised the post
and the Selection Committee constituted
by it had made the recommendation. The
appointment of the petitioner as an ad hoc
teacher was, therefore, contrary to the
provisions of Section 18 of the Act. It is,
therefore, void and cannot confer any
right upon him. The relief claimed for in
this petition to grant financial approval to
the appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade),
therefore, cannot be granted.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVSTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68245 Of
2005

Mehndi Hasan

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Siddharth Nagar & others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.K. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Chitragupt
Sri P.P. Chaudhary
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Art 1953Section
48-Revisional
Power-Chak
allotment-Petition's chak not disturbed
upto S.O.C. stage-while considering the
revision the DDE excluded Plot no. 259,
430 from chak and given totally, 'Udan'
chak over plot no. 51 without application
of mind based non spiking order-held
Liable to be quashed.

Held: Para 3

On consideration of the entire materials
on record and impugned orders of
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is
clearly borne out that the orders are
without
any
reason
and
without
application of mind to the grievance of
the parties. Appellate order is also