Back
PRAKASH SINGH
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. Notices to the concerned respondents, other than the State, are hereby dispensed with.
3. The bunch of petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing their respective rejection orders, mainly on the ground that they were entitled to be considered and to be regularised, under the provision of Section 33-G of the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1982’) but the benefits under the aforesaid provisions have been declined to them.
4. The provision of Section 33-G of the Act 1982 is extracted as under:
(a) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer's grade or trained graduate grade on or after August 7, 1993 but not later than January 25, 1999 against a short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficultie
The court established that adherence to prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice is essential in administrative decision-making, particularly in matters affecting the rights of individ....
The court established that the failure to consider relevant records and provide a fair hearing constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the decisions of administrative ....
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 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....
Appointments made in violation of statutory provisions are void ab initio, reinforcing the requirement for lawful selection processes in public employment to uphold Articles 14 and 16 rights.
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 under inapplicable statutory rules are void and cannot confer enforceable rights; the governing statutes change with institutional upgrades.
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
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....
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
