Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Sushil Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. , Through Its Additional Chief Secy. Secondary Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court assails the validity of the judgment and order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition bearing No.30173(SS) filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed.
2. At this juncture itself, we may notice that by filing the said writ petition, a challenge was made to an order dated 31.10.2018 whereby the services of the respondent No.7-Akhilesh Chandra Pandey were regularized on the post of L.T.Grade Teacher in the institution concerned. Another prayer made in the writ petition by the appellant-petitioner was to quash the order dated 14.01.1992 whereby the respondent No.7 was appointed initially on the post of Lecturer in Commerce. The other prayer made in the writ petition was that the respondents therein be directed to pay arrears of salary which is said to have accrued to him with effect from February, 2021 and further to continue to pay him salary on monthly basis.
3. Heard Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant-petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondent and also perused the documents available before us in this
The appellant-petitioner's failure to include the challenge to the order of regularization of respondent No.7 in the earlier writ petition relinquished that claim. A challenge to the initial appointm....
The court affirmed that administrative actions must be taken within a reasonable time frame, and the cancellation of a long-standing appointment based on flawed reasoning is unjustified.
The court established that interim orders do not invalidate prior valid selections and that seniority must be determined based on actual service and selection dates.
The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners.
Seniority in service is determined by the date of regularization, not the initial appointment date, as per the applicable service rules.
The claim for seniority based on initial appointment dates was rejected, reaffirming previous court decisions that prioritized adherence to government orders.
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
