SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Rakesh Tripathi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 907 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Indra Raj Singh, Adarsh Singh.

IMPORTANT POINT
A teacher cannot be dismissed for irregularity in appointment if they are not involved in any misrepresentation or conspiracy, and teachers are entitled to be paid salary until their claim is finally rejected.

Headnote:

Regularization - Education - AIR 2024 SC 260, Rule 90(b) of the Service Regulations - The court discussed the irregularity in the appointment of a teacher and the subsequent rejection of regularization. It highlighted the legal principle that a teacher cannot be dismissed for irregularity in appointment if they are not involved in any misrepresentation or conspiracy. The court also emphasized that teachers are entitled to be paid salary until their claim is finally rejected. The order of the Regional Selection Committee was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh orders after verifying the entire records and the order dated 5.12.2008.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his claim for regularization based on the conversion of a short-term vacancy into a substantive vacancy. The court found that the Regional Selection Committee did not apply its mind to the correct facts and passed the order in a cursory manner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the approach of the Regional Selection Committee to be casual and not approved of. It condoned the arbitrary act but emphasized the need for thorough examination of records and verification of correctness by the Regional Selection Committees in the future.

Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization based on the conversion of a short-term vacancy into a substantive vacancy and the casual approach of the Regional Selection Committee in passing the order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a teacher cannot be dismissed for irregularity in appointment if they are not involved in any misrepresentation or conspiracy. It also emphasized that teachers are entitled to be paid salary until their claim is finally rejected.

Final Decision: The order of the Regional Selection Committee was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh orders after verifying the entire records and the order dated 5.12.2008.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and perused the records.

2. Petitioner has questioned the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 2- Regional Selection Committee chaired by the present Regional Joint Director of Education, Secondary, Prayagraj rejecting his claim for regularization of the petitioner only on the ground that short-term vacancy upon which he was appointed in the year 1997, later on got converted into a substantive vacancy in the year 2008.

3. This Court earlier, however, noticed this above reason and found to be highly misplaced and, therefore, had directed the Regional Joint Director of Education, Secondary, Prayagraj as well as the District Inspector of Schools concerned to remain present today in the Court along with their affidavits. Sri Sacchidanand Yadav, who happens to be the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi and Sri Dibya Kant Shukla, the Regional Joint Director of Education, Secondary, Prayagraj both are present. Both the officers have filed their personal affidavits in support of their application seeking exemption from personal appearance and have stated that as a matter of fact, the earlier Assistant Teacher Manmohan Pandey upon whose ad-hoc promotion as a Lecture (Sociology), the vacancy in L.T. Grade had arisen on a short-term basis, later on got reverted to the said position on 4.12.2003 and consequently the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on that short-term vacancy came to be cancelled on 30.9.2005. This stand taken in the affidavit and the order annexed runs contrary to the reason assigned in the order of the Regional Selection Committee while refusing to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioner that the vacancy had became substantive and so petitioner had no claim. In the reason assigned in the order passed by the Regional Selection Committee, it has clearly come in black and white that the said Manmohan Pandey had retired on 30.6.2008 while working as Lecturer (Sociology) in the Institution. Thus, the stand taken by the Regional Selection Committee which was chaired by the present Regional Joint Director of Education, Secondary, Sri Dibya Kant Shukla and of which Sacchidanand Yadav was the ex-officio Secretary, is contrary to this individual stand taken before the Court in their affidavits by the officers present in Court.

4. Today, another order has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which was passed by the Additional Director of Education on behalf of the Direction of Education (Secondary) on 5th December, 2008, whereby the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.9.2005 was held to be erroneous and illegal and was accordingly cancelled. It is the order dated 30.9.2005 upon which the affidavits filed today by Sri Dibya Kant Shukla and by Sri Sacchidanand Yadav, present in court, depend.

5. Upon a pointed query being made, both the officers have shown their ignorance of the order dated 5th December, 2008 and submit that this order was not available in their records.

6. In the total circumspect of the case as discussed above, it transpires that the Regional Selection Committee did not apply its mind to the correct facts available on record, nor could even search out the documents available in the Institution or in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Sri Sacchidanand Yadav, who is present in court, submits that earlier report, which has been discussed by the Regional Selection Committee was submitted by earlier District Inspector of Schools and not by him and, therefore, he can not say much about the same.

7. It is unfortunate that the Regional Selection Committee has proceeded in the matter and passed order in a cursory manner without completely looking into the available recor

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top