IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility for regularization and pension is contingent upon meeting the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment and undergoing a selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Rajeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh for the sole respondent.

2. This intra-Court appeal is against the judgement and order dated 13.5.2022 in Writ A No. 4124 of 2022, Dr. (Smt) Sushila Joshi v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition of the respondent had been allowed, the orders of the appellants dated 7.7.2015, 15.5.2020 and 2.6.2020 were set aside and a mandamus was issued to the appellants to regularise the services of the writ petitioner from the date of regularization of similarly situated persons, coupled with the payment of her regular salary till the date of her retirement and for computation and payment of post-retiral benefits alongwith the interest.

3. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that she possesses academic qualification of passing High School with 54.80%, Intermediate with 50.40%, B.A. with 47.20%, M.A. with 57.20% and also awarded Ph.D. degree in the year 1986 from the Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal. As per the writ petitioner, the State Government in exercise of the powers as conferred therein had issued a Government order dated 30.3.1987 providing for engagement of part-time volunteers (Teachers) under the Voluntary Teaching Scheme. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as the State was facing huge scarcity of the teaching staff, so in order to meet out the said contingency, the Scheme known as Voluntary Teaching Scheme for engagement of part-time teachers was introduced. According to the writ petitioner, the Government Order dated 30.3.1987 itself provided for the minimum academic qualification necessary for engaging part-time teachers which was that a candidate must possess 55% combined marks at Intermediate and Graduate level or 50% marks at Intermediate and Graduate Level, separately. A further provision of relaxation of 5% was made in case none of the candidates possessed the minimum qualifications. The writ petitioner claims to have been engaged as part-time lecturer in Government Degree College, Uttar Kashi on 12.2.1987. Pleadings further reveal that the writ petitioner joined as a part-time Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Uttar Kashi on 13.2.1987 and by order dated 6.3.2000, she was transferred to Government Degree College, Hamirpur. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that by order dated 13.3.2000, she was granted minimum pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000. As per the writ petitioner, the appellants by virtue of order dated 1.4.2004 declared the writ petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer w.e.f. 10.10.1986 and she continued to work as Lecturer for more than 32 years and ultimately, superannuated in the month of May 2019. Pleadings further reveal that the claim of the writ petitioner for being regularized as a Lecturer on regular basis was turned down by the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. Petitioner further claims to have preferred Writ-A No. 9191 of 2019 (Dr. Sushila Joshi v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court alleging that similarly situated persons had been considered for regularization in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979, but the case of the writ petitioner was not being considered despite that she was possessing Ph.D. degree and she was entitled to relaxation. The said writ petition came to be disposed off on 15.7.2019 with a direction to the second appellant herein to consider the claim of the petitioner for relaxation in light of the possession of Ph.D. degree within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. As per the writ petitioner, she represented the matter before the appellants but the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization and other consequential benefits attached thereto was negated by virtue of the order dated 7.7.2015, 15.5.2020 and 2.6.2020.

4. Challenging the orders dat