IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 3518, 8437, 8549, 8560, 8569, 8586, 8588, 8641, 8695, 8738, 8872, 8945, 8946, 8953, 8955, 8957, 8979, 9309, 9310, 9315, 9524, 9751, 9780, 9831, 10091 of 2023, Writ (A) Nos. 393, 396, 412, 650, 2422, 2476, 2842, 2905, 3290, 3298, 3335, 3410, 3417, 3419, 3426, 3428, 3433, 3434, 3435, 3441, 3534, 3605, 3671, 3677, 3683, 3920, 3933, 3979 of 2024
Decided On : 31-05-2024
REGULARIZATION - UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 33-G, Section 33-C(2)(b) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 33-G of the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, which outlines the criteria for regularization of teachers appointed under specific conditions. It emphasized the necessity of a prescribed procedure for selection and the adherence to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a hearing. The court found that the Regional Level Committee failed to follow these legal requirements, leading to the quashing of the rejection orders and the directive for a fresh consideration of the petitioners' cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their applications for regularization under Section 33-G of the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, claiming entitlement based on their appointments during specified periods and conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regional Level Committee did not follow the prescribed procedure for considering the regularization of the petitioners, violating principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for a hearing and failing to procure necessary records.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization under Section 33-G of the Act and whether the rejection orders were lawful given the lack of adherence to prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a prescribed procedure for selection as mandated by Section 33-C(2)(b) invalidated the rejection orders. It emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be observed in administrative proceedings, ensuring that affected parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court quashed the rejection orders and directed the Regional Level Committees to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the law, ensuring adherence to the prescribed procedures and providing opportunities for hearing.
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 Difficulties) (Second) order, 1981 as amended from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy.
(b) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after August 7, 1993, but not later than December 30, 2000 on adhoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade.
(c) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(d) has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016.
(e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 33-C in accordance with the procedure prescribed under clause (b) of the said sub-section.
Shall be given substantive appointments by the Management:
(2)(a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment.
(b) if two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first.
(3) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment.
(4) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under the said sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be contrued to entitled any teacher to substantive appointment if on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment Act), 2016 such vacancy had already been filed or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act.
(6) The services of the adhoc teachers and the teachers who have been appointed against short term vacancies shall be regularised from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment Act), 2016.
(7) Reservation Rules shall be followed in regularization of adhoc teachers and teachers who are appointed against short term vacancies.
(8) Adhoc teachers, who have not been appointed either in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or in accordance with Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and are otherwise getting salary only on the basis of interim/Final orders o
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Limited and Others
Mohindher Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
Rajjan Lal Vs. State and another
State Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.