Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Vinesh Kumar Tyagi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary and others – Respondent
Writ A No.70175 of 2013, WRIT A No.16279 of 2019
Decided on : 16-10-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 - Sections 18 and 33-A - Writ petition challenging cancellation of regularization as Lecturer - The Director of Education's order was quashed as it was based on flawed findings regarding the petitioner's appointment and regularization, which were in accordance with the Act. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Administrative powers - The exercise of administrative powers must be within a reasonable time frame; actions taken after significant delays are deemed unreasonable. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer, challenged the cancellation of his regularization after serving for over 30 years, claiming it was unjustified based on procedural errors.
Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation order flawed and unreasonable, affirming the petitioner's lawful service and entitlement to post-retiral benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the petitioner's appointment and the reasonableness of the Director's actions after a long delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's regularization was valid and that the Director's cancellation was unreasonable due to the significant time elapsed since the initial appointment.
Result: Both petitions allowed; the impugned order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of the present writ petition and connected Writ-A No.16279 of 2019.
2. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Allahabad (now Prayagraj), insofar as it cancels the petitioner's regularization in service as a Lecturer (English) with the Hindu Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor. The said order, to the extent it relates to the petitioner, will hereinafter be referred to as 'the impugned order'. The petitioner also seeks consequential reliefs in the nature of directions to the respondents, to which allusion would be made in the course of this judgment.
3. Pending this writ petition, an interim order was granted on 12.02.2014, suspending the operation of the impugned order, and further, directing the respondents not to interfere with the services of the petitioner as the Officiating Principal of the institution last mentioned. And, pending this petition, while functioning as the Officiating Principal of the institution, known as the Hindu Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor (for short, 'the Institution'). The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner's claim for payment of his post retiral benefits, including pension, was returned by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) vide order dated 25.03.2019, without sanctioning the same, carrying a remark that under Rule 13 of the relevant pension rules, the pensioner must have retired from a substantive and permanent post, whereas the petitioner here was functioning under an interim order of this Court passed in Writ-A No.70175 of 2013, regarding which effective steps need be taken to get the stay order vacated.
4. The relief claimed in Writ-A No.16279 of 2019, which is directed against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 12th Region, Moradabad, is, therefore, dependent upon the outcome of Writ-A No.70175 of 2013. It is for this reason that Writ-A No.16279 of 2019 was connected with Writ-A No.70175 of 2013 vide order dated 14.11.2019, passed in the former writ petition and both were heard together, treating Writ-A No.70175 of 2013 as the leading case.
5. This Court proposes to notice the facts from the leading case. The Institution is a recognized and aided intermediate college, governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Appointments of teachers to the Institution are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act of 1982'). The Institution is in receipt of a maintenance grant from the Exchequer with salaries to its teachers and other employees being paid under and regulated by U.P. Act No.24 of 1971. The petitioner was selected and granted ad hoc appointment as a Lecturer (English) by the Committee of Management in the exercise of their powers under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, as then in force, vide appointment order dated 03.12.1983. The petitioner joined the Institution pursuant to the appointment order. The petitioner's ad hoc appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor (for short, 'the DIOS') vide order dated 01.12.1983. Admittedly, approval was granted by the DIOS limited in time until 30.06.1984. The petitioner says that there was no justification for this temporal limitation. The approval order was subsequently modified by the DIOS vide order dated 13.06.1984, which said that the approval stood extended till a candidate recommended by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short, 'the Board'), joins the post.
6. The petitioner further says that while he was working as an ad hoc Lecturer, by an order dated 19.10.1985, recommendation was made for appointment of one Mahipal Singh on the post which the petitioner held ad hoc from amongst the reserve pool of teachers by the DIOS. The p
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 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 judgment establishes that allegations of fraud and forgery must be supported by evidence, and impugned orders lacking such evidence are bad for want of authority of law.
The court established that an employee appointed on an adhoc basis against a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization and seniority from the date of their initial appointment if similarly situat....
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
The court held that actions taken by authorities without following due process to invalidate service and withhold pension are illegal and unenforceable.
The court established that the qualifications for regularization as per the statute take precedence over any conflicting requirements stated in advertisements, emphasizing the importance of adhering ....
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
