Allahabad High Court
Shrikant Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 July, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40874 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shrikant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rahul Jain Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5. Sri A.B. Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4.
Issue notice to respodnent no.3 fixing 23rd August, 2010 as the date.
Petitioner to take steps within a week.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date fixed.
List on the date fixed.
By means of the amendment application, which has been allowed today by the Court, petitioner challenges the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria dated 12th July, 2010, wherein he has directed that respondent no.4 be appointed as officiating principal of the institution, as the said respondent no.4 is senior to the petitioner.
For considering the interim stay application filed along with the present writ petition and amendment application, it is necessary to reproduce the facts in short.
Petitioner was appointed as L.T. grade teacher in the institution, namely, Gyan Prakash Intermediate College, Bhaluani, District Deoria with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools dated 8th July, 1972. The vacancy on the post of Lecturer (History) was fallen vacant in the institution on 1st July, 1995 due to retirement of one Ramayan Singh. The vacancy was within the 50% quota for promotion. Petitioner being senior-most eligible teacher in L.T. grade for such promotion was recommended to be promoted on the said post under resolution of the Committee of Management of the institution as per the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission Rules, 1995 as then applicable. Approval to such substantive promotion was required to be granted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the papers to the Board on 1st January, 1996. Before the Selection Board could take any decision in the matter, U.P. Secondary Education Services Board Rules, 1998 came to be in force. Under Rules, 1998, power to approve the substantive promotion was conferred upon the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee ultimately under an order 12th February, 1999 approved the substantive promotion of the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Lecturer on substantive post since then. In between when no formal orders of approval was still awaited, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order for ad hoc promotion of the petitioner and granted financial approval thereto under order dated 19th January, 1996. Petitioner is working and drawing salary as Lecturer since then.
Respondent no.4 was granted ad hoc promotion against a short term vacancy, which was caused in the institution due to officiating appointment as Principal of the senior most Lecturer (Hindi) of the institution, namely, Narmadeshwar Prasad Srivastava. The vacancy stood converted into substantive vacancy on the retirement of Narmadeshwar Prasad Srivastava on 30th June, 2000. However, the respondent no.4 is stated to have continued as Lecturer even after the change in the nature of vacancy. The vacancy is to be filled by direct recruitment. Till date the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board has not recommended any candidate for appointment as Lecturer (Hindi) nor it is known as to whether the vacancy has been requisitioned by the Committee of Management to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board or not.
In the aforesaid factual background it is to be examined as to whether the petitioner is senior to respondent no.4 or not.
The issue of delay in approval of promotion under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 and consequent impact on seniority has been subject matter of consideration by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36245 of 2004 (Santosh Kumar Dubey & Anr. versus State of U.P. & others) and other connected writ petitions decided on 13th October, 2009. It has been held that where there is inordinate delay on the part of the approving authorities in consideration of the substantive promotion of a teacher concerned, his right to be treated to have been substantively promoted from the date the resolution of the Committee of Management was passed, or at least from the date when the statutory period of three months prescribed under the Rules, 1998 expires cannot be denied. Moreover, the petitioner is a substantively appointed Lecturer, while the respondent no.4 still continues as ad hoc lecturer only.
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order.
Till the next date of listing, operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 12th July, 2010 shall remain stayed. All necessary action shall be taken accordingly.
(Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2010 Sushil/-
Court No. - 18Civil Misc. Amendment Application No........of 2010 In Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40874 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shrikant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rahul Jain Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This application is allowed.
Let Sri Vikram Singh and Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur be impleaded as respondent nos. 4 and 5 during the course of the day.
Other amendments may be carried out within one week.
(Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2010 Sushil/-