Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Sunil Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1247 of 2023
Decided on : 22-03-2024
Regularisation - Lecturer - UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 - Sections 33-A, 33-B - The court interpreted provisions for regularisation of ad-hoc teachers, emphasizing the principle of deemed abandonment of service after five years of absence, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation and post-retirement benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired lecturer, challenged the rejection of his regularisation claim by the Regional Selection Committee, which was based on the argument that the vacancy had not been substantively filled when he was appointed ad-hoc in 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation under Section 33-B of the Act, as the vacancy had effectively become substantive due to the previous lecturer's abandonment of service after five years of absence.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation as a lecturer under the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, given the circumstances of his appointment and the vacancy's status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Act must be interpreted harmoniously, and the principle of deemed abandonment of service after five years applies, allowing the petitioner to be regularised.
Result: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the regularisation of the petitioner and granting him all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner who has finally retired as Lecturer from the institution of 5th respondent on 31.3.2022, has approached this Court questioning the decision of the Regional Selection Committee dated 2.5.2022 whereby his claim for regularisation as Lecturer has been rejected and so resultantly he stands denied of post retirement dues including pension.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on account of one Suraj Prakash Agrawal, Lecturer (Chemistry) proceeding on long leave, the committee of management proceeded to fill up such short term vacancy by appointing petitioner as ad-hoc Lecturer on 29.10.1985. The appointment of the petitioner though came to be approved by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) but he was not paid any salary. Resultantly, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No. 20807 of 1986 and the High Court while entertaining the petition issued a direction on 17.12.1986 to the effect that until services of the petitioner were terminated or some other candidate came and joined on recommendation of the Selection Board, petitioner shall be continued and he shall be entitled to emoluments (salary).
4. Ever since his appointment, petitioner continued to teach in the institution regularly and received salary as the sitting Lecturer Suraj Prakash Agrawal who had lien against the post, did not turn up to resume his duties. Section (1-A) came to be inserted after Section 33-A(1) of the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act, 1982') w.e.f. 6.4.1991 taking aid of which, the services of petitioner came to be regularised and the order to this effect was passed by the DIOS on 19.5.1992. Since the services of the petitioner were regularised, the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition (A) No. 20807 of 1986 was dismissed as infructuous on 11.9.2006. Petitioner was accorded with selection grade upon 12 years of continuous service after regularisation, by the order of DIOS vide order dated 22.11.2008, however, suddenly the committee of management adopted a resolution on the back of the petitioner on 22.11.2016 terminating the services of the petitioner. Petitioner represented before the DIOS against the resolution adopted by the committee of management on the ground that until prior approval of the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board (for short, ''Selection Board''), no such order could have been passed. The DIOS allowed the representation of the petitioner on 25.11.2016 holding that without approval of the Board, resolution adopted by the committee of management will be taken to be null and void.
5. The committee of management challenged the decision of the DIOS dated 25.11.2016 vide writ petition being Writ-A No. 57215 of 2016 and got an interim stay order. It is also pertinent to mention here that, when the question of appointment of ad-hoc/officiating principal arose on account of post falling vacant on 30.6.2014, both the petitioner and one Ganesh Chandra Goel put up their repetitive claims on the basis of seniority to be appointed and claim of petitioner having been rejected, he filed a writ petition before this Court vide Writ-A No. 52277 of 2014. While this writ petition remained pending, the DIOS passed an order accepting the claim of petitioner for being appointed as officiating principal on 28.9.2016, which came to be challenged by Ganesh Chandra Goel vide writ petition being Writ-A No. 48836 of 2016. One more writ petition was filed by the petitioner as Writ Petition No. 60494 of 2016 which was directed against the resolution of the committee of management dated 20.11.2016 and the consequential order dated 22.11.2016, though the same got subsequently disapproved by the DIOS on 25.11.2016.
6. All th
The court established that a teacher's continuous absence for five years leads to deemed abandonment of service, allowing for regularisation under specific provisions of the Act.
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....
The court affirmed that administrative actions must be taken within a reasonable time frame, and the cancellation of a long-standing appointment based on flawed reasoning is unjustified.
For regularization under Section 33-B of the Act, 1982, the person should have been continuously serving the institution from the date of appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act, an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conducting regular selections for the post of Asstt. Professor in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2010, and the emphasis....
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....
Point of law : The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interi....
Temporary or contractual employees lack legal entitlement to regularization unless appointed through lawful selection processes as established by precedent.
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
