Allahabad High Court
Suraj Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 9 January, 2020
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19591 of 2019 Petitioner :- Suraj Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi, Rohit Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sankalp Narain Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi and Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsels for the respondent No. 5.
There is an institution in the name of Sri D.C. Vaidik Inter College, Bhogipura which is duly recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and provisions of U.P. High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to the Teaching and Other Staff) Act, 1971 is applicable.
It appears that the said institution has claimed status of minority institution which was denied to the petitioner. Consequently, the Committee of Management has preferred Writ Petition No. 1128 of 1982. In the meantime, the Committee of Management has proceeded to hold selection on the vacant post of Assistant Teacher in exercise of power under Section 16 FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner was selected and was appointed by order of the then Manager of the College dated 26.6.1995, copy of which is annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The approval to the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the result of writ petition No. 1128 of 1982. The petitioner has been continuing as Assistant Teacher on the said post since the date of his appointment. The services of the petitioner was not regularized, therefore, claiming the benefit of Section 33 G inserted in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982 w.e.f. 22.5.2016, the petitioner claimed the regularization of his services. The papers of the petitioner was forwarded by the Committee of Management, and the Regional Level Committee after considering the record passed an order for regularizing the services of the petitioner which was duly communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 29.6.2019 of Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra.
In the meantime, it appears that some dispute cropped up between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in respect of seniority and respondent No. 5 challenged the appointment of the petitioner in Writ A No. 3973 of 2019 (Smt. Gunjan Arya Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) which was dismissed by this Court. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.3.2019 is extracted hereinbelow:-
".....This Court would not be inclined to entertain a challenge to the appointment of respondent no.5, after such long lapse of time, particularly at the instance of the Officiating Principal. It is otherwise not disputed that respondent no.5 possesses requisite qualification and a fair procedure was followed as per the law then available. It is therefore not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. "
It further transpires from the record that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted a complaint to the respondent No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner has obtained his regularization by concealing material fact inasmuch as the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was subject to result of Writ Petition No. 1128 of 1982, and the said writ petition was dismissed, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is per-se illegal and as such, services of the petitioner could not be regularized.
The respondent No. 2 taking cognizance upon the complaint of the respondent No. 5 passed an order dated 22.11.2019 staying the regularization order dated 29.6.2019 and further directed the matter to be placed before it after one month with the report of Inquiry Committee constituted for purpose to enquire about the appointment of the petitioner. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is not sustainable for the reason that appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the order dated 29.6.2019 regularizing the services of the petitioner. Thus, the respondent No. 2 without appreciating the correct facts on record passed the order dated 22.11.2019. He further contended that there is no power vested with the Regularization Committee under Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Commission Act, 1982 to stay the order of regularization.
Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents submitted that the respondent No. 2 on the basis of material on record was prima facie of the opinion that the regularization of the petitioner has been procured by concealing material fact, hence, he has rightly passed the order staying the operation of the order of regularization. He further submits that the final decision is yet to be taken by the Regularization Committee and as such, this Court may not interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition at this stage.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 contends that as the appointment of the petitioner was per-se illegal inasmuch as the Committee of Management has exercised its power under Section 16FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 treating the institution to be minority institution has appointed the petitioner and as the Writ Petition No. 1128 of 1982 has been dismissed by this Court in which the order denying the status of the minority institution has been challenged. Therefore, the institution is not a minority institution, hence, the appointment of the petitioner could not have been made under Section 16-FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
I have heard rival submission of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 and his appointment has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools in the year 1995 and the petitioner has been continuing since then is not disputed by the respondents. It is further not in dispute that the regularization order dated 29.6.2019 has been passed by the respondent No. 2 regularizing the services of the petitioner. The record of the case further reflects that the challenge to petitioner's appointment made by respondent No. 5 in Writ A No. 3973 of 2019 (Smt. Gunjan Arya Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) was dismissed and further learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision under U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Commission Act, 1982 which confers power with the Regularization Committee to stay the order of regularization. As there is no power of stay with the respondent No. 2 to stay the regularization order dated 29.6.2019, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and in this view of the fact, the same cannot be sustained.
However, considering the fact that the Regularization Committee-respondent No. 2 is still seized with the matter and has directed the matter to be posted after one month with inquiry report, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2 to take a final decision in respect of regularization of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Till the final decision is taken by the respondent No. 2, the order dated 22.11.2019 impugned in the writ petition shall not be given effect to.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Jaswant