Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Sunder Lal Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ A No. 37932 of 2015
Decided on : 22-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Suhail Ahmad Ansari, Advocate, Mr. Khalil Ahmad Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh,

IMPORTANT POINT
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 the nature of the appointment, distinguishing between substantive and short-term vacancies.

Headnote:
REGULARIZATION - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 - Sections 18, 33C, 33F - The court analyzed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, particularly Sections 18, 33C, and 33F. It interpreted Section 33F as applicable to appointments made against short-term vacancies, while Section 33C was relevant for those appointed against substantive vacancies. The court concluded that the petitioner’s appointment did not meet the criteria for regularization under Section 33F, but warranted consideration under Section 33C, which had not been properly addressed by the Joint Director of Education.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Sanatandharm Inter College, was appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1992. He sought regularization of his services under Section 33F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, after his salary was stopped in 2009. The Joint Director of Education rejected his claim for regularization, stating that the appointment did not follow the required procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Joint Director of Education improperly rejected the petitioner's claim without referring it to the appropriate Regional Selection Committee. It determined that the petitioner’s case should be considered under Section 33C, not Section 33F, as he was appointed against a substantive vacancy.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization under Section 33F of the Act, and whether the Joint Director of Education had the authority to reject the claim without referring it to the Regional Selection Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Joint Director of Education's order was illegal as it did not comply with the Division Bench's directive to consider the case under Section 33C. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s appointment was against a substantive vacancy, thus necessitating consideration under Section 33C.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Joint Director of Education and directed that the petitioner’s case be considered by the Regional Selection Committee under Section 33C within six weeks.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi dated 22.06.2015, refusing to regularize the services of the petitioner under Section 33F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982)[‘the Act of 1982’ for short]. There is a further prayer that this Court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus-directing the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun[‘DIOS’ for short] and the Committee of Management, Sanatandharm Inter College, Orai to pay the petitioner his monthly salary along with arrears since the month of December, 2009 until the date of his retirement.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Sanatandharm Inter College, District Jalaun[‘the Institution’ for short] is a duly recognized and aided intermediate college. The petitioner is a graduate and describes himself as trained in “Physical Science”. He applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade pursuant to an advertisement, the date and particulars whereof do not find mention. He was selected and appointed in the L.T. Grade as an adhoc teacher by the Management. It appears to be the petitioner's case that he was appointed to the post of an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Training Instructor) under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, to which, no regular appointment was made by the Selection Board, in accordance with Section 18 of the said Act, as it stood before its omission by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1993. The petitioner says that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Board, the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution dated 25.06.1992, deciding to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Training Instructor) till a regularly selected candidate is appointed by the Board. Pursuant to resolution appointing the petitioner, he joined duties on 01.07.1992. It is his case that he is functioning regularly eversince. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.03.2016. This writ petition was instituted on 06.07.2015.

3. It is the petitioner's further case that there is no controversy about existence of sanctioned post and no infirmity with the procedure relating to his appointment as an adhoc-teacher under Section 18 of the Act of 1982. He has functioned regularly since his appointment and received salary up to November, 2009, pursuant to an order of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28026 of 1992. How that happened is described like this : After the petitioner's selection and appointment by the Committee of Management of the Institution, all relevant papers required for grant of financial approval were submitted to the DIOS, but the DIOS passed an order dated 10.07.1992, illegally refusing to grant financial approval to the petitioner's appointment. The only reason assigned by the DIOS was that there was a ban against appointments. The order of the DIOS is on record, which, indeed, shows that in accordance with a circular of the Director of Education dated 31.08.1991, there was a stay on adhocappointments of teachers directly recruited. Apparently, for the said reason, the DIOS declined to approve the petitioner's appointment.

4. The petitioner then instituted Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28026 of 1992 before this Court, impugning the order of the DIOS on 10.01.1992. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, passed the following interim order on 12.08.1992 :

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 8/10.7.1992 passed by respondent no.1 shall remain stayed and the respondents are also directed to pay the salary of the petitioner whenever it is due to him.

5. Now, it is the petitioner's case that in compliance with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the petitioner was in receipt of regular salary and, of cours