Allahabad High Court
Bhanu Pratap Singh Shishodia And ... vs D.I.O..S & Others on 7 May, 2013
Author: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25133 of 1992 Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Shishodia And Another Respondent :- D.I.O..S & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Sinha,A.P.Singh Raghav,Akhilesh Tripathi,Anil Yadav,S.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,S.P.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners as Teacher in Lecturer Grade and to accord approval for regular promotion of the petitioners.
Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
Rana Sangram Singh Inter College, Bishara, district Ghaziabad is a recognised institution, wherein education is imparted upto the level of Intermediate. It receives aid out of State Fund. the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Regulations framed thereunder, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (U.P.Act No. 5 of 1982), and the U.P.High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the institution. The institution is administered by the respondent no.2, i.e. Committee of Management.
It is stated that petitioner no. 1 unfortunately died during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is pressing the relief on behalf of petitioner no.2 only.
The petitioner no.2 was initially appointed on 9.7.1973 (wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as 16.12.1998). It is stated that three posts of lecturer fell vacant in the College on account of retirement of teachers working in lecturer grade in English, Sanskrit and History subjects. There are total ten sanctioned post of lecturer. The petitioner no.2 did his M.A. in Sanskrit and he is B.Ed. also. The petitioner no.2 moved an application for his regular promotion in lecturer grade under 50% promotion quota. Application of the petitioner no.2 was considered by the Committee of Management and passed a resolution recommending the name of the petitioner no.2 for promotion in lecturer grade. All relevant papers were furnished to the office of the District Inspector of Schools and the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on 31.10.1991. It is stated that papers for regular promotion were also sent to the Commission on 4.11.1991. When no steps were taken for regular promotion of the petitioner in lecturer's grade, he preferred writ petition before this Court. This Court passed the following interim order :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
So far as relief regarding issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners is concerned, the same is inter-tuined with the decision in the referred writ petition No. of 1992 filed on behalf of Smt. Durgesh Kumari, inasmuch as the Adhoc appointments of the petitioners were made after the embargo put on the appointments. As regards the relief regarding issuance of a direction to the commission for according the approval to the proposal for regular promotion under Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 is concerned, the same may be examined and considered if and when the Secondary Education Services Commission resumes its functioning inasmuch as the learned counsel for the parties are not sure whether the Act passed by the State legislature abolishing the Secondary Education Services Commission and substituting it by the Regional Selection Board has been accorded assent to by the President of India.
Accordingly list this petition for admission after three months. It is made clear that in case the petitioners are working as lecturers on ad hoc basis in the concerned institution, they would not be disturbed until further order of this Court. "
It is stated that on the strength of interim order, uninterruptedly, the petitioner continued to work in the institution and salary paid.
During the course of the proceedings the State Government has amended the Act and certain provisions have been made for regularization of ad hoc teachers appointed under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 read with Difficulties of Removal Orders. Section 33 A was inserted by U.P.Act No. 19 of 1985 (w.e.f. 28.12.1994) Section 33 B was brought on Statute Book by U.P.Act No. 1 of 1993 (w.e.f. 7.8.1993), Section 33 C and Section 33 D were inserted by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998 (w.e.f. 20.4.1998) and 33 F was inserted by U.P.Act No. 5 of 2001 (w.e.f. 30.12.2000).
The objects of these amendments were to regularize ad hoc teachers appointed from time to time against substantive vacancies and short term vacancies, as the case may be. It is common knowledge that Commission/Board takes considerable long time to complete the process of recruitment. It is impossible to fill huge vacancies that goes on increasing by passing years.
Having regard to said object and intention of the legislature I am of the view that if two views are possible while considering regularization of teachers, the authorities concern may take a view which favour the teacher. Having said so, I hasten to add that statutory provisions cannot be bypassed. The Selection Committees constituted are invested with Statutory power to examine the cases of regularization in terms of conditions mentioned in the above sections.
This Court in Yash Karan Singh (supra) has considered the judgement of Supreme Court in Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur and another v. Sree Kumar Tiwari and Another reported 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1133 and Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Pramila Misra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi reported in 1997(2) ESC 1284; Raj Kumar Verma and Another v. D.I.O.S. Saharanpur and others, 1999 (3) ESC 1950 and Smt. Shashi Saxena and others v. Deputy Director of Education and others reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1990, this Court issued direction to Selection Committee to consider the cause of the teachers therein for regularisation under section 33 B of Act No. 5 of 1982. In Yesh Karan Singh v. DIOS and Another (supra) also teacher was working on the strength of interim order for a quite long time.
Relevant would it be, to mention that similar orders in same set of facts have been passed by different Division Benches and by learned Single Hon'ble Judges. Reference may be made to some of the cases: Smt. Indu Gautam v. DIOS Aligarh (Special Appeal No. 643 of 2012) ; Smt. Sadhna Sharma v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 1591 of 2006; Writ Petition No. 2627 of 1990 Smt. Madhu Bala Gupta and another v. State of U.P. ; Writ Petition No. 24383 of 1989 V .K.Sharma v. State of U.P. and Writ Petition No. 11797 of 1994 Shashi Prakash Dubey and Another v. DIOS and others.
As a result, I am of the view that end of justice would be met if a direction is issued upon the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education under section 33 -C (2 a) of the Act, to consider the cause of the petitioner for regularization of the petitioner in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed by the Regional Committee as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.5.2013 ssm