The court ruled that retired ad hoc teachers must be considered for regularization under Section 33-G, regardless of their retirement status, emphasizing the importance of full bench rulings.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashank Mishra, Advocate and Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 47082 of 2000 (Smt. Pratima Chauhan vs. D.I.O.S. & others).

3. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that, in an earlier round of litigation, this Court, vide its judgment dated 02.02.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21353 of 1997 (Smt. Pratima Chauhan & another vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education and others), allowed the said writ petition with a specific direction to the Joint Director of Education, Agra, to accord approval to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners and to pay salary from the date of joining till the regular selection against the short-term vacancy, or the date of confirmation, or till the post becomes a substantive vacancy, whichever is earlier.

4. The undisputed fact in the present petition is that the petitioners were selected for appointment against a short-term vacancy after the publication of an advertisement. However, no approval was accorded to the proposed selection for appointment, and consequently, the petitioners filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12163 of 1996, against the refusal to approve their ad hoc appointments. Initially, an interim order was granted, and subsequently, the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 14.03.1997, with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners. However, upon reconsideration, vide order dated 02.06.1997, the representation of the petitioners were rejected, and consequently, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21353 of 1997 was filed which was also allowed vide judgement dated 02.02.1999.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioners, who are two in number, had joined the Institution on 27.02.1996 and have been functioning there since then, taking regular classes. Eventually, vide judgment dated 02.02.1999, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, considered the objection of the respondents regarding non-publication of the advertisement in two newspapers and held that publication in only one newspaper did not stand in the way of allowing the petitioners to continue in service on an ad hoc basis, subject to the conditions mentioned therein, as had been held by this Court in the case of Chatur Singh and another vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, decided on 03.12.1996 in Writ Petition No. 37497 of 1996. Accordingly, granting the same relief as given in the case of Chatur Singh (Supra), the petitioners were allowed to continue in the same capacity till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission becomes available for joining and subject to the aforesaid direction was issued to grant approval. The said judgment has attained finality.

6. However, though the petitioners were continuing in service, they were not paid salary w.e.f. 02.09.1999, and were again forced to approach this Court by filing a writ petition with the following prayer:

“i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioners on their respective posts as ad hoc Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade till regular appointment/ad hoc appointment under section 18 is made on the post held by the petitioners and to pay salary to the petitioners with effect from after 2.9.1999 and continue to pay salary to the petitioners