Executive instructions imposing bans on Section 18 ad-hoc appointments cannot override statutory short-term appointments under Removal of Difficulties Orders.

The petitioners were appointed as ad hoc L.T. Grade Teachers on 04.04.1998 against short-term vacancies arising from the ad hoc promotion of permanent staff to Lecturer posts

These appointments were made under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981

The District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) refused to approve their appointments and salaries via an order dated 15.05.2002, citing a Government Order (G.O.) dated 03.11.1997 that purportedly banned ad hoc appointments

The petitioners challenged this refusal and the G.O., asserting they had completed over 28 years of service and were entitled to regularization under Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982

1. Whether the Government Order dated 03.11.1997, which imposed a ban on ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, applied to short-term appointments made under the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981

2. Whether an executive instruction (G.O.) can override or suspend statutory provisions governing appointments

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization under Section 33-G of the Act of 1982

The Court applied the principle that executive instructions cannot override, amend, or supersede statutory rules or Acts

It relied on the Full Bench decision in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2005), which held that administrative instructions lack the force of law if they conflict with statutory provisions

The Court also interpreted the scope of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, vs. the Removal of Difficulties Order (II), 1981 and Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921

Finally, it applied Section 33-G of the Act of 1982, which provides for the regularization of certain ad hoc teachers

The Court reasoned that the G.O. dated 03.11.1997 specifically targeted ad hoc appointments made under Section 18 of the 1982 Act and did not encompass short-term appointments made under the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981

The DIOS erred by failing to distinguish between these two distinct legal frameworks

Furthermore, citing Vijay Singh, the Court held that the G.O. could not legally suspend statutory powers granted to management under the 1921 Education Act or the 1981 Order

The Court noted that the State itself had lifted the ban via a subsequent G.O. dated 09.03.1998, rendering the 1997 G.O. ineffective

Since the petitioners had continuously discharged their duties for nearly three decades and no regular selection had been made by the Board, they fell within the ambit of the regularization provisions of Section 33-G

It held that the ban on ad hoc appointments did not apply to short-term vacancies filled under the 1981 Order

The writ petition was allowed with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization under Section 33-G w.e.f. 22.03.2016

In the interim, the Court ordered that the petitioners be paid their regular monthly salary for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade)