Court No. - 39

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 129 of 2023

Appellant :- Chandrapal Singh And 9 Others

Respondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Ajit Pratap

Kushwaha

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This appeal has been filed by 10 persons who claimed to have

worked as Supervisor under Non-formal Education scheme

launched by the State Government between the year 1995 to 2001

at different places in the State of U.P.

The prayer in the writ petition was to issue a direction to the State

respondents to absorb the petitioners/appellants herein namely the

Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow, on regular post with pay

scale as per their eligibility and ability in any of the department in

view of their long service rendered as Supervisor/Instructor in

Non-formal Education Project.

The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

judgment and order dated 31.1.2023 with the categorical finding

that there was no justification to entertain the writ petition on

account of inordinate delay of 22 years without there being any

explanation in approaching this Court.

It was further noted that with the enactment of the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 only those

candidates who possess qualification prescribed by the NCET can

be appointed as teacher and the persons like the petitioners cannot

be given appointment as teacher. Moreover, in the year 2016 itself,

a decision has been taken in this regard and the letter dated

04.08.2016 has been written by the Additional Project Director,

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, U.P. to the Joint Secretary, Basic Shiksha,

Siksha Anubhag-5, U.P. Government, Lucknow that with the

coming into force of the Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010, there was no

question of absorption of the Instructors in surplus on the post of

teacher and the scheme has come to an end automatically.

It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that from the

averments in the writ petition, the actual date of engagement of the

petitioners and the actual number of working days for which they

have worked under the scheme could not be discerned.

It is also noted that no statutory provision for

regularization/absorption could be brought by the petitioner in the

Writ Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction.

Reliance placed on other decisions of the learned Single Judge in

similar situation by the petitioners herein have not been agreed to

for the above reasons.

Noticing the grounds of rejection of the writ petition, we raised a

pointed query to the counsel for the appellants to explain the

inordinate latches in filing the writ petition. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the appellants that they were agitating their

claims before the State Government and there has been some

positive consideration at some point of time. It is further pointed

out that the issue in relation to delay has been considered by a

learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 18.8.2022

wherein the claim of the petitioners being fence sitters has been

turned down on the ground that the State did not come forward to

formulate a policy for absorption of those persons who have

worked for a long period under the scheme of the State and, as

such, the right of the petitioners cannot be said to have

crystallized.

It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants

that once Special Appeal Defective No. 10 of 2023 filed by the

State challenging the order of the learned Single Judge issuing

directions to consider the claim of similarly situated persons has

been dismissed on 10.1.2023, they cannot dispute the stand of the

petitioners/appellants.

Noticing all these submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellants, having perused the judgment and order dated 25.5.2022

passed by the learne