Back
[2006(5) ADJ 508]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SABHAJEET YADAV, J.
OM PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (MADHYAMIK) AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3894 of 1996, decided on 16th June, 2006)
(B) Doctrine of prospective overruling—Cannot be evolved and applied by Court as held in Golak Nath's case—That doctrine can be invoked only, in matters, arising under Constitution—And it can be applied only by highest Court, i.e., Supreme Court, as it has constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all Courts in India—High Court cannot evolve that doctrine by postponing/halting/deferring operation of its judgments, leaving it to be applied only in connection of cases, arising out after decision rendered by High Court—Therefore, law declared by High Court was always retrospective in operation, except in cases where decision has effect of amending statute, whereby taking away vested, or accrued rights of individuals—And High Court has no power/jurisdiction to halt, or postpone the effect of operation of law, declared by it, or to defer it, for operation in future—However, Civil Court and High Court has ample power to mould relief claimed in proceedings—But said power would not be confused and equated with power to halt/defer/restrict operation of law, declared by High Court itself, in sense that decision would apply prospectively, or would have prospective operation. [Constitution of India—Articles 141 and 142]. [Para 18]
(C) U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982—Section 33-A (1-c)—Appointment—Ad hoc appointment of teacher—Question of regularisation—Since selection and appointment of respondent 4, was not made in accordance with provisions of law, rather made contrary to law—As such, was void ab initio—And did not confer any right upon appointee—Therefore, being de hors to statutory provisions of law, cannot be regularised under Section 33-A(1-C) of Act of 1982—However, only those ad hoc appointee, can be regularised, whose appointment was in accordance with provisions of law. [Para 29]
Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 23.1.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik) Azamgarh Region Azamgarh the respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition. A further relief in the nature of mandamus was sought for directing the Committee of Management to proceed to fill up the post of lecturer in English in the institution in question afresh.
2. The relief sought in the writ petition rests on the allegations that the institution in question namely D.A.V. Inter College Maunath Bhanjan District Mau hereinafter referred to as the Institution is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Act 1921. The institution is also receiving grants in-aid out of State fund, and is recognised under the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as Payment of Salaries Act 1971. The provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, and various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued thereunder from time to time are also applicable in connection of appointment, promotion and disciplinary control of the teachers of the institution. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on 19.1.1978 in the institution and similarly the respondent 4 Amar Nath Misra was also appointed as Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade in the same institution on 19.1.1978 itself. The petitioner was senior in age, therefore, he was senior to the respondent 4 as per Regulation 2 of Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner has passed his M.A. Examination in English and was also trained while he was appointed on the aforesaid post. So far as the respondent 4 is concerned it is stated that he passed his M.A. Examination in English in the year 1981 after his appointment as C.T. Grade teacher in the institution. One post of lecturer in English fell vacant on 30.6.1985 on account of retirement of one Sri Bhagwat Lal Srivastava. There was no English teacher available in the L.T. Grade in the institution who could be promoted on the aforesaid vacant post of lecturer in English in the institution, consequently the Committee of Management had filled up the aforesaid vacancy by way of direct recruitment. It is alleged that the Committee of Management of the institution was interested in appointing the respondent 4 as lecturer in English on adhoc basis consequently the Committee of Management without intimating the vacancy to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission/Selection Board hereinafter referred to as the Commission/Selection Board as required under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 proceeded to appoint the respondent 4 on adhoc basis by way of direct recruitment. It is further alleged that as per the case set up by the respondent 4 himself before the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), the vacancy in question was allegedly notified to the Commission by the Managing Committee on 25.6.1985. The Committee of Management thereafter passed a resolution on 20.8.1985 whereby a sub-Committee of three persons namely Brij Bihari Tandon the Manager, Raj Narain and Sri Narain Misra the Principal was constituted for selecting the candidates for appointment on the post in question in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The Committee of Management in its resolution dated 20.8.1985 also resolved that candidature of the respondent 4 for appointment on the post in question shall also be considered keeping in view the fact that he was teaching English in Intermediate Classes. The aforesaid su
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
