Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Arvind Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 11855 Of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2024
Regularization - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, Appendix-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 33-G(8) of Act No. 5 of 1982 - Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. - Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, claimed to have been working since 1997 and sought regularization. The Committee of Management and District Inspector of Schools challenged his eligibility for regularization, citing invalid appointment and payment of salary under court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's appointment was valid and that payment of salary under court orders did not invalidate his claim for regularization. The Court quashed the orders challenging the petitioner's eligibility and directed a fresh decision within thirty days.
Issues: Validity of the petitioner's appointment, eligibility for regularization under Section 33-G(8) of Act No. 5 of 1982, and the impact of court orders on payment of salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's appointment was valid and that payment of salary under court orders did not preclude his eligibility for regularization. The Court emphasized that each appointment must be assessed on its own merits and that the mere receipt of salary under court orders did not invalidate the claim for regularization.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the challenging orders, and directed a fresh decision within thirty days.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Committee of Management and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner before this Court is working as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade in a recognized and aided institution being run and managed by 6th respondent and claims that he has been working ever since he submitted his joining in the institution on 5.12.1997 pursuant to his initial appointment on 3.12.1997 taking recourse to provisions as contained under Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and read with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982. He claims to have been appointed against short term vacancy on account of one Saryu Yadav, the then Assistant Teacher in LT Grade upon getting promoted as head master in the institution in October, 1996.
3. He also claims to have possessed requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade as per provision Appendix-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and therefore, Committee of Management rightly proceeded to adopt resolution accepting recommendation of the selection committee offering him appointment. The papers, according to the petitioner were forwarded by the Committee of Management on 8.12.1997 to the District Inspector of schools but the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner and so also consequently he was not paid salary. It was when despite several representations made by him, no heed was paid by the District Inspector of Schools, petitioner approached the Lucknow bench of this Court by filing writ petition (SS) No. 4740 of 2009, in which a detail interim order was passed on 30th October, 2010 with the rider that in the event petitioner has been working upon being appointed against short-term vacancy and discharging duties as such then it will be equitable to pay him salary, accordingly he is entitled to salary.
4. The order dated 10th May, 2002 negating the claim of the salary of the petitioner was stayed, of-course the Court also ordered that in the event selected candidate joined the institution, automatically petitioner’s appointment against post in question would come to end. After the interim order was passed as above by this Court on 30th August, 2010, the District Inspector of Schools, it appears enquired from the Principal of the institution regarding appointment and working of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on ad hoc basis and upon furnishing of requisite information and documents by the then Principal of the institution that District Inspector of Schools proceeded to pass order for payment of salary. Thus petitioner has been drawing salary.
5. In the meanwhile, petitioner also filed writ petition being Service Single No. 13361 of 2001 seeking consideration of his claim for regularization in view of Section 33-G of the Act No. 5 of 1982 while disposing of the said petition under the order dated 27.7.2021, the Court also disposed of earlier petition of the petitioner being no. 47040 of 2009 on 27.7.2021 with a direction that petitioner would be continued in employment and shall be paid salary in terms of an interim order passed earlier by this Court on 30th August, 2010 till such time a final decision is taken by respondents in the matter of regularization as directed by this Court in the other writ petition no. 13361 of 2001.
6. It is in this above view of the matter that claim for regularization come to be decided by the Regional Selection Committee under the order impugned after hearing all the respective parties including Committee of Management and in its final resolution adopted by the Committee it negated the claim of the petitioner for regularization holding him not eligible as such for regularization not falling within the criterion laid down under Section 33-G(8) of Act No. 5 o
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless employees claiming regularisation had been....
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....
The judgment establishes that allegations of fraud and forgery must be supported by evidence, and impugned orders lacking such evidence are bad for want of authority of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's long service as a Trained Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant post and the Government's decision to declare the non....
The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners.
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.
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
