Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 October, 2019
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 920 of 2019 Appellant :- Ashutosh Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 10th January, 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 341 of 2019 (Ashutosh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition for the reasons stated therein.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
The only question which arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Kuldeep Thakur reported in 2017 (4) ADJ 94 (DB) (LB), will be applicable in the writ petitioner's case or not.
The learned Single Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition dealt with the issue extensively and answered in the negative. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow:-
"Petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment was directed to be considered by the competent authority under an order of this Court dated 19.9.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 44317 of 2017. Such claim of petitioner has been rejected by the order impugned The order records that petitioner's father was engaged as an adhoc teacher in the year 1995 and his services were not regularised by the time he died in the year 2014. As per the order, claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is, therefore, not covered under the relevant rules.
The order is challenged relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Kuldeep Thakur, 2017 (4) ADJ 94 (DB)(LB) by contending that the claim of regularisation of petitioner's father ought to have been examined first before considering the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner he relied upon the provisions of Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 to contend that the claim of petitioner's father for regularisation was covered therein. Section 33-G of the Act is reproduced:-
"33-G. Regularisaiton of certain more appointments against short term vacancies:- (1) Any teacher, other than the Principal or the Headmaster, who-
(a) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer's grade or trained graduate grade on or after August 7, 1993, but not later than January 25, 1999 against a short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, as amended, from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy;
(b) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after August 7, 1993, but not later than December 30, 2000 on adhoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with section 18, in the Lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade;
(c) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
(d) has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016;
(e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 33-C in accordance with the procedure prescribed under clause (b) of the said sub-section;
shall be given substantive appointments by the Management".
From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that apart from the other conditions stipulated therein for regularisation, one of the essential condition is that the person concerned must be working on the date of introduction of Section 33-G of the Act itself. Section 33-G was admittedly added in the year 2016, prior to which the petitioner's father had already died. In such circumstances, claim of petitioner's father for regularisation is not shown to be covered Section 33-G of the Act of 1982. In that view of the matter petitioner would not be entitled for grant of benefit in terms of the judgment of Division Bench in State of U.P. and others v. Kuldeep Thakur (supra). No other illegality is pointed out in the order of the Inspector.
Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed."
Upon perusing the records, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the reasons supplied by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that the Division Bench judgment was inapplicable in the facts of the writ petitioner's case. The learned Single Judge, it appears, considered section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and came to the conclusion that it was clear therefrom that apart from the other conditions stipulated in the said provision of law for regularization, one of the essential conditions was that the person concerned must be working on the date of introduction of section 33-G of the said Act itself. Section 33-G was admittedly added in the year 2016, prior to which the writ petitioner's father had already died in the year 2014. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that the claim of the writ petitioner's father for regularization was not shown to be covered under section 33-G of the Act of 1982. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has concluded that the writ petitioner would not be entitled for grant of benefit in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuldeep Thakur (supra).
We are of the view that in an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.
For reasons stated above, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the impugned judgment and order. The Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 LBY (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 920 of 2019 Appellant :- Ashutosh Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Re:- C.M. Delay condonation Application No. 1 of 2019.
After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned.
The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 LBY (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)