Summary
A teacher appointed by the management of an aided institution sought financial approval and salary from the State. The appointment filled a substantive vacancy without following the prescribed ad hoc recruitment process and during a recruitment ban. The Court upheld refusal of approval and rejected the claim against the State.
Issues
- Whether an ad hoc appointment by school management contrary to the prescribed procedure entitled the appointee to financial approval and State-funded salary.
Held
- Management’s power to fill a substantive vacancy on an ad hoc basis is limited by statutory preconditions and the Removal of Difficulties Orders. Promotion must be considered before direct recruitment, which must follow the prescribed process involving the District Inspector of Schools. (¶¶ 10.2, 11, 12)
- The management itself resolved to appoint the appellant without complying with paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The courts below correctly applied Radha Raizada as approved in Prabhat Kumar Sharma. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- An appointment made contrary to the required process, during the relevant recruitment ban, did not create an enforceable salary obligation against the State. The claim of long unpaid service did not cure the defective appointment. (¶¶ 7, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of financial approval and State salary liability upheld. Parties were to bear their own costs.