Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Pandey - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secy. Secondary Education and Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 9 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2022
Regularization - Dispute over seniority and promotion - U.P. Intermediate Education Act - 22.03.2016, 22.07.2016 - The court discussed the inter-se-seniority between the appellant-petitioner and respondent No.7, the order of regularization of services of respondent No.7 on the post of Lecturer Grade dated 31.10.2018, and the challenge to the initial appointment of respondent No.7 on 14.01.1992. The court also considered the claim of the appellant-petitioner to be paid salary on the post of Principal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-petitioner challenged the regularization of respondent No.7's services and the initial appointment of respondent No.7. The appellant-petitioner also sought arrears of salary and regular salary as Incharge Principal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the date of substantive appointment of the appellant-petitioner in the Lecturer Grade is 22.07.2016, while the date of substantive appointment of respondent No.7 in Lecturer Grade is 22.03.2016, making respondent No.7 senior to the appellant-petitioner. The court also dismissed the appellant-petitioner's claim for challenge to the order of regularization of respondent No.7 in Lecturer Grade dated 31.10.2018 and the challenge to the initial appointment of respondent No.7 made on 14.01.1992. The court noted that the appellant-petitioner's grievance relating to payment of arrears of salary had been redressed.
Issues: Challenge to regularization of respondent No.7's services, challenge to initial appointment of respondent No.7, claim for arrears of salary and regular salary as Incharge Principal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 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. The court also found that a challenge to the initial appointment of respondent No.7 after a long period of 30 years would not be maintainable.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal was dismissed as highly misconceived.
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 special appeal.
4. This case reflects another example of perpetual feud between the teachers of government aided and recognized institutions in the State of U.P. where they are on loggerhead almost continuously fighting for their regularization and thereafter inter-se-seniority and further promotion. Such a dispute appears in this case as well between the appellant-petitioner and the respondent No.7-Akhilesh Chandra Pandey.
5. The facts of the case which can be culled out from the pleadings available on record, are that the appellant-petitioner is said to have been appointed on 24.06.1991as L.T. Grade Teacher in the institution, namely, Bhagwan Deen Dubey Inter College, Paharpur, Pratapgarh, which is an institution recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. He is said to have promoted to the post of Lecturer, vide resolution of the Committee of Management dated, 10.05.2016. The appropriate Committee considered the said promotion of the appellant-petitioner to the post of Lecturer Grade in meeting which was held on 18.07.2016 and accordingly, the Manager of Institution, vide its order dated 28.04.2020 directed the appellant-petitioner to discharge the administrative and other functions of the post of Principal in the Institution as incharge Principal.
6. The appellant-petitioner thereafter claimed that his signatures should be attested as Principal of the Institution. The said matter was, however, contested by the respondent No.7 and the matter relating to inter-se-seniority as well was considered by the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj who passed an order on 15.12.2020 holding therein that the respondent No.7-Akhilesh Chandra Pandey was given regular post of Lecturer Grade in Commerce on 22.03.2016 whereas the appellant-petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer Grade in Education in the Institution on 22.07.2016 and thus, the Joint Director in the said order held that respondent No.7 is senior to the appellant-petitioner.
7. Considering the said order dated 15.12.2020, passed by the Joint Director of Secondary Education, the District Inspector of Schools, passed an order dated 31.12.2020 directing therein that the respondent No.7-Akhilesh Chandra Pandey shall be allowed to discharge his duties as Incharge Principal of the Institution and accordingly his signatures be sent for attestation.
8. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, dated 15.12.2020, passed by the Joint Director of Secondary Education whereby the inter-se-seniority between the appellant-petitioner and respondent No.7 was determined and the order dated 31.12.2020, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh whereby the Management of the Institution was directed to handover the charge on the post of Incharge Principal to the respond
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
