IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that nobody can be condemned unheard, and an authority cannot review a decision taken by a duly constituted committee without referring the matter back to the committee.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2020 whereby the Regional Joint Director of Education recalled the earlier regularisation order granted to the petitioner on 12.12.1995 under Section 33-B of the UP Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 (for short, "Commission Act, 1982").

3. Twin arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner: (a) once the regional selection Committee had accorded regularisation to the petitioner under its resolution/decision dated 12.12.1995, the Regional Joint Director of Education (I) Region Meerut himself was not authorised to recall such regularisation order and cancel the same. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is bad for coram non judice; and (b) the order had been passed recalling the order of regularisation without giving any notice much less a show cause notice to the petitioner even though the order impugned was to have adverse civil consequences.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis under Section 18 of Commission Act, 1982 on 09.07.1985 on account of then incumbent Pawan Verma, Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics proceeding on leave without pay. The approval of appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis was granted by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) on 02.09.1985. Petitioner continued as such, according to him, until the vacancy fell substantively vacant on account of resignation of said Ram Singh on 19.06.1987. Resultantly, the committee of management proceeded to continue him by means of an order dated 12.07.1987. This according to him, was a kind of fresh appointment but it was in continuation of his earlier appointment as he was initially appointed in the year 1985 filling up the place of said Ram Singh who had earlier proceeded on leave but ultimately came to resign at later point of time. The approval of appointment of petitioner to the substantive vacancy came to be granted on 16.01.1990.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's marriage with the daughter of the then principal of the institution took place on 01.03.1987, so it was much after the initial appointment of the petitioner in the institution against a short term vacancy which later on became a substantive vacancy. It is submitted that petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2023.

6. Per contra, argument advanced on behalf of the State-respondents is that the appointment of petitioner made on 12.07.1987 is to be taken as a fresh appointment and admittedly on that date, petitioner had already been married to the daughter of then sitting principal of the institution. However, he could not deny the fact that petitioner had been initially appointed in the year 1985 against a short term vacancy on account of the said Lecturer Ram Singh proceeding on leave without pay. This has been so specifically stated in para 5, 6 & 8 of the counter affidavit.

7. On the legal question being raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that decision impugned in the writ petition dated 31.12.2020 was exclusively taken by the Regional Joint Director of Education without there being any approval in that regard by the Regional Selection Committee. He also could not dispute that there is no averment in the entire counter affidavit that any notice much less a show cause notice was given to the petitioner before the order impugned came to be passed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, having perused the record and the arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties, two points emerge for consideration before this Court: (i) whether the order of Regional Joint Director of Education