JUDGMENT
Sudhir Narain, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.1.1996 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Allahabad. whereby he disapproved the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade in S. A. V. Inter College, Saini, Strathu, district Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as the Institution).
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Ram Bahadur was a permanent Assistant Teacher In L. T. grade in the Institution, He was granted promotion to the post of Lecturer in the year 1993 on the basis of the recommendation made by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). His appointment was made on probation for one year.
3. The Management of the Institution resolved to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade on ad hoc basis on the vacancy caused on promotion of Ram Bahadur. The post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade was advertised in the newspapers ‘Prayag Raj Times’ and ‘Aaj’. The petitioner applied for appointment. The Selection Committee constituted by the Committee of Management selected the petitioner. The Manager of the Institution issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 28.6.1993. He joined the post on 17.7.1993. The Committee of Management forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for according financial sanction. On 25.1.1994 the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad sent a communication to the Manager making certain queries with regard to the papers submitted for grant of approval. It is alleged that the necessary papers were forwarded to him. On 11.1.1996 he has disapproved the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the Director of Education Issued a letter dated 9.6.1995 that there was a ban in respect of the appointments after the establishment of the Commission and in view of the said Circular, the petitioner should not have been appointed.
4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ban was not applicable in respect of short-term vacancy. He has referred to a decision in Mukesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 (2) UPLBEC 783, wherein it was held that the ban imposed by the State Government is not applicable in respect of the short-term vacancy.
5. The core question for consideration is whether the appointment of the petitioner was made on short-term vacancy. Ram Bahadur was promoted as Lecturer on regular basis on the recommendation of the Commission. It was not ad hoc promotion. The contention of Sri Khare is thai till Ram Bahadur was not confirmed or submitted his resignation, he could not have been reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade and for such period, the appointment should have been made treating it to be a short-term vacancy. He has referred to various decisions in support of his contention.
6. In Awadhesh Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki and
others, 1987 UPLBEC 236, it Was held that if a teacher is appointed in another
Institution and he has taken the leave from the Institution where he was working, the post shall not be treated as substantively vacant unless the resignation of such teacher is accepted. In this case; the Teacher concerned was appointed as Principal in another Institution but he had taken the leave from the Institution, where he was working initially. The leave was granted to him and later on he had submitted his resignation. In Jagdish Singh Kushwaha v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, 1993 (4) HVD (All) 21. it was held that the Teacher, who was a permanent Lecturer in the Institution concerned, was selected for appointment as a principal in another Institution. He joined the post there and obtained leave from the Institution where he was working and despite his confirmation, he continued to be on leave. Later on he submitted his resignation from his post of Lecturer in Geography, it was held that till the resignation was accepted, substantive vacancy did not arise. The Court took the view that the concept of the lien is not applicable to the teachers employed in the Institutions recognised under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is not necessary to examine the concept of the lien of a Government servant to a particular service. It is, however, clear that no teacher can function In the two Institutions at one and the same time. If he has joined another Institution or another post, he is to leave another Institution or post. He can apply for grant of leave at the Institution where he was originatly working on the ground that he may come back if he is not confirmed there in the service. The leave is to be granted keeping in view the Government Orders as provided under Regulation 99 of Chapter 111 framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which provides that the leave can be sanctioned in accordance with the Government Orders. In case the leave is not granted, the teacher shall be treated to have left the Institution or abandoned and in that situation, it is not necessary that the Committee of Management should pass an order for termination of his services.
7. In Ram Lal Khurana v. State of Punjab and others, 1989 (4) SCC 99, it was held that generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post, then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears because no Government servant can simultaneously have two liens against two posts In two different cadres. In Shabbir Ahmad v. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur and others, 1991 (18) ALR 648, where a teacher is promoted and appointed in another institution, it was held that he does not hold the post where he was working after the period of the probation and the teacher so promoted stands automatically confirmed and does not require any specific order to be passed by the Committee of Management of the Institution.
8. In this case, it is not the version of the petitioner that Ram Bahadur, after having been promoted as Lecturer, had applied for leave In the institution in question. It is not necessary to consider that Ram Bahadur continued in the institution in question on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade till his leave continued. Ram Bahadur was appointed on probation on 1.7.1993 on the post of Lecturer and after expiry of one year, i.e., 30.6.1994, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed. The appointment of the petitioner can be treated on ad hoc basis only for the period till 30.6.1994.
9. The petitioner shall be paid salary for the period till 30.6.1994 provided he continued to work in the Institution on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade.
10. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the District Inspector of Schools is quashed and the Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad respondent No. 1 is directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner keeping in view the observations made above. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.