Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Ved Prakash and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 23131 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2022
The Court held that the principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners. The Court also held that the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the respondents reviewing its earlier order dated 30.12.2015 passed by Regional Level Committee is not sustainable for one more reason that the Regional Level Committee has no power to review its order as it is settled in law that the review is the creation of statute and authority can exercise the power of review if it is conferred by the statute. The Court further held that the order dated 23.08.2018 is not sustainable in law for want of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the order impugned do not reflect that any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as L.T. Grade teachers in a recognized Institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The petitioners challenged the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Director of Education, (Secondary), Government of U.P., Lucknow and order dated 28.10.2021 passed during the pendency of the writ petition by the Regional Level Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the objections which have been taken by the respondents in denying the claim of the petitioners are barred by principle of res-judicata and constructive resjudicata, hence, are not sustainable in law. The Court also held that the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the respondents reviewing its earlier order dated 30.12.2015 passed by Regional Level Committee is not sustainable for one more reason that the Regional Level Committee has no power to review its order as it is settled in law that the review is the creation of statute and authority can exercise the power of review if it is conferred by the statute. The Court further held that the order dated 23.08.2018 is not sustainable in law for want of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the order impugned do not reflect that any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
Issues: Whether the principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners. Whether the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the respondents reviewing its earlier order dated 30.12.2015 passed by Regional Level Committee is sustainable. Whether the order dated 23.08.2018 is sustainable in law for want of principle of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners. The order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the respondents reviewing its earlier order dated 30.12.2015 passed by Regional Level Committee is not sustainable for one more reason that the Regional Level Committee has no power to review its order as it is settled in law that the review is the creation of statute and authority can exercise the power of review if it is conferred by the statute. The order dated 23.08.2018 is not sustainable in law for want of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the order impugned do not reflect that any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), State of U.P., Lucknow and order dated 28.10.2021 passed during the pendency of the writ petition by the Regional Level Committee. The respondents were directed to pay the salary and arrears of salary including all the consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, asisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4.
2. The petitioners, who are four in numbers, have assailed the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Director of Education, (Secondary), Government of U.P., Lucknow and order dated 28.10.2021 passed during the pendency of the writ petition by the Regional Level Committee and have further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Director of Education to pay arrears of salary.
3. The facts in brief are that D.A.V. Inter College, Aryapur Khera, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’) is a recognized Institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 is applicable in the present case.
4. According to the petitioners, two posts of L.T. Grade teacher were sanctioned by the Director of Education vide order dated 31.03.1991 and two posts became vacant on account of retirement of Kaptan Singh and Shyam Bihari Dubey (Assistant Teacher) on 30.06.1991. The Committee of Management of the College (respondent no.5) decided to make appointment on the said posts and passed a resolution to this effect on 07.07.1991. The respondent no.5 sent a requisition to the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri (respondent no.4) (hereinafter referred to as 'D.I.O.S. Mainpuri') on 20.08.1991 to forward the same to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) for filling the aforesaid four posts.
5. Further case of the petitioner's is that after sending the requisition by the respondent no.5 to the Commission, the respondent no.5 advertised the aforesaid posts in the daily newspaper on 03.10.1991 and the same was also pasted on the notice board of the College. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the College, several candidates had applied, and on the basis of quality point marks, the petitioners were found to be the most suitable candidates, accordingly, they have been selected against the aforesaid four posts of L.T. Grade Teacher. Consequently, the petitioners have been issued appointment letters as L.T. Grade Teacher on 20.10.1991.
6. Pursuant to the appointment letters, the petitioners joined on 01.11.1991. The respondent no.5 forwarded the papers of the petitioners to the respondent no.4 for grant of financial approval, which was rejected by the respondent no.4 by order dated 13.04.1992 on the ground that a ban was imposed by the State Government on ad hoc appointments.
7. The petitioners challenged the order dated 13.04.1992 passed by respondent no.4 rejecting financial approval, by means of Writ Petition No.18381 of 1992, in which this Court on 22.05.1992 passed an interim order directing the respondent no.4 to release the salary of the petitioners. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioners have been paid from 01.11.1991 to July, 1995.
8. It is further stated that respondent no.4 stopped the salary of the petitioners which led the petitioners to file Writ Petition No.28887 of 1995 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgement and order dated 16.10.1995 with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate amendment application in the pending writ petition.
9. By amendment, Section 33-C has been added in U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 relating to regularization of ad hoc Teachers. Section 33-C came into force on 20.04.1998. According to Section 33-C, teachers appointed between 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993 are entitled to be regularized under this Section.
10. The petitioners claim that after the insertion of Section 33-C in Act 1982, they submitted an application to the respondent no.4 praying that their claim for regularization as well as for payment
The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners.
The court ruled that the termination of ad hoc teachers' services based on the Government Order was unjust and mandated fresh consideration of their regularization claims under the relevant statutory....
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The receipt of salary under court orders does not invalidate the claim for regularization if the appointment is otherwise valid.
The court established that regularization claims under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, must be considered based on the specific provisions applicable to th....
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
