Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 5710 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 5710 ALL
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 September, 2014

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5392 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming regularisation on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Cooperative Inter College Pipraich, Gorakhpur vide Section 33-C of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998.

3. It is evident from record that petitioner claims to be appointed against a substantive vacancy of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade after promotion of three teachers as lecturers. It is said that appointment letter was issued to petitioner on 7.2.1999 by management. There is no averment in the entire writ petition to show that provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "First Order") read with Section 18 of U.P Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1982") were followed. In case the ad hoc appointment itself was not made validly, question of considering petitioner for regularisation under Section 33-C does not arise.

4.Evidently , the said procedure has not been followed. An appointment not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute is void ab initio and illegal. It does not confer any right either to hold the post or to claim salary. In Prabhat Kumar Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, A.I.R. 1996 SC 2638 the Apex Court held that the procedure for ad-hoc appointment under the Removal of Difficulties Order is mandatory and if the said procedure is not followed strictly, the appointment, if any, shall be void ab initio. It would not confer any right upon the incumbent either to hold the post or to claim salary. This decision has been reiterated and followed in Shesh Mani Shukla Vs. D.I.O.S., Deoria & others, J.T. 2009(10) S.C. 309.

6. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.9.2014

SKS