2019 Supreme(All) 144

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Suneet Kumar, Saumitra Dayal Singh, Ajay Bhanot, JJ.
Jahaj Pal – Appellant
Vs.
District Inspector of Schools and Another – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013, 28 of 2006, 717 of 2009, 252 of 2017, Special Appeal Defective No. 34 of 2006, Writ - A No. 19243 of 1999
Decided On : 21-02-2019

Headnote:

U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 – U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 – Section 16 and 33-B – U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 – Section 2 and 24 – U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Section 32 – U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1971 – 33-F – U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016 – Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 – Rule 5-A – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 8-A – Payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff governed by provision of "U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges for Recruitment of teaching staff is governed by provisions Act 1982 – Whether ad-hoc appointee, appointed against short term vacancy, would automatically cease to be in employment upon conversion of vacancy into a substantive vacancy –or benefit of regularization as provided under Section 33-B of 1982 available only where short term vacancy gets converted into substantive vacancy after commencement of U.P. Act1993 and not before – Whether Full Bench decision in case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) lays down correct law as it fails to consider legislative intent reflected by insertion of Section 33-B UP 1982 – Held, Scheme of legislation was very simple when Radiogram was issued thereafter various enactments were issued and amendments were made – Legislature attempted to cover subsequent situations, when arisen but our judicial experience shows that this very legislation of Act, 1982 caused heavy burden on this Court resulting in thousands and thousands writ petitions and mostly due to fact that there are numerous amendments, and interpretation of various provisions were made differently having different consequences – Sometimes in zeal of extending hands of justice to serve individuals ignoring plain consequences of statutory provisions and sometimes due to different perception of Judges of Courts in respect of administration of justice – Time and again, it has been cautioned by Apex Court that interpretation of statute should be carefully done and there should not be any diversion, deviation or angular interpretation by doubting wisdom of legislature whether principal or delegated, unless legislation itself assailed being ultra vires for one or other reasons or if consequences of plain interpretation and application, as we have already said, are absolutely against public interest and/or so drastic that no one could have intended same – We not propose to expand our observations in respect of subsequent provisions made for substantive appointment/absorption those issues are not necessary to examine to answer questions referred – Appeals orders accordingly – (Paras: 203 to 210)

Facts of the case:

Payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff governed by provision of "U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges for Recruitment of teaching staff is governed by provisions Act 1982 – Whether ad-hoc appointee, appointed against short term vacancy, would automatically cease to be in employment upon conversion of vacancy into a substantive vacancy –or benefit of regularization as provided under Section 33-B of 1982 available only where short term vacancy gets converted into substantive vacancy after commencement of U.P. Act1993 and not before – Whether Full Bench decision in case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) lays down correct law as it fails to consider legislative intent reflected by insertion of Section 33-B UP 1982

Findings of the court:

Scheme of legislation was very simple when Radiogram was issued thereafter various enactments were issued and amendments were made – Legislature attempted to cover subsequent situations, when arisen but our judicial experience shows that this very legislation of Act, 1982 caused heavy burden on this Court resulting in thousands and thousands writ petitions and mostly due to fact that there are numerous amendments, and interpretation of various provisions were made differently having different consequences – Sometimes in zeal of extending hands of justice to serve individuals ignoring plain consequences of statutory provisions and sometimes due to different perception of Judges of Courts in respect of administration of justice – Time and again, it has been cautioned by Apex Court that interpretation of statute should be carefully done and there should not be any diversion, deviation or angular interpretation by doubting wisdom of legislature whether principal or delegated, unless legislation itself assailed being ultra vires for one or other reasons or if consequences of plain interpretation and application, as we have already said, are absolutely against public interest and/or so drastic that no one could have intended same – We not propose to expand our observations in respect of subsequent provisions made for substantive appointment/absorption those issues are not necessary to examine to answer questions referred.

Result: Appeals orders accordingly