Allahabad High Court
Indra Mani Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5926 of 2021
Petitioner :- Indra Mani Pandey And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Baranwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Baranwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Petitioners have assailed the Advertisement No. 2/2021, whereby applications have been invited for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in aided recognized intermediate institutions. The advertisement is assailed primarily on the ground that the direction issued by the supreme court have not been complied with, inasmuch as separate examination ought to have been conducted for those ad hoc teachers who are continuing since long.
Reliance is placed upon two orders passed by the supreme court. The first order is an interim order dated 28.02.2020, passed in Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"Even though the impugned order substantively deals with the legal principle, we are only making an endeavour to sort out the mess created over a period of time. We have put to learned senior counsel for the the appellants that merely by reason of the fact that a number of appellants may be working, but without the process through the Board, cannot entitle them for regularization. We are categoric in our view. However, we would also not like a situation to develop where the persons who have worked for many years are thrown out of the job, even though the aforesaid position is a part of avowed thought process. We have put to learned counsel for the parties that a possible solution may be that all the appellants and similarly situated persons go through a process carried out by the Board not competing with fresh candidates and such those person who make a benchmark, can be permanently absorbed. That, we feel, is the maximum extent we are willing to go."
The above observation is clear, inasmuch as the supreme court categorically observed that ad hoc teachers working for long would not be entitled for regularization except without undergoing the process through the board (the recruitment agency) under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
The Court has then made a suggestion to the learned counsel for the parties to evince their comment on the issue whether a separate examination be conducted for the ad hoc teachers.
The above observation cannot be construed as a direction to the Board to conduct a separate examination for the ad hoc teachers.
The Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 has finally been decided by the supreme court and the observation made in para 5 and 7(a) of the final judgment reads as under:-
"5. We did debate the issue whether a separate examination should be held for such persons or whether they should participate in the prospective examination process. Normally the difficulty arises on account of the age bar but i.e. undisputedly not a factor in the present case as everybody will be permitted to appear. At times separate examinations have been held in different situations but in the present case we are not concerned with persons who are working at a trade and have been away from the academics since the very nature of job of teaching envisages a continued academic pursuit and improving your skills in teaching."
"7. It is in the conspectus of all the aforesaid circumstances that we consider appropriate to issue the following directions in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) All the petitioners/appellants and applicants before us and for that matter all persons eligible under the advertisement will be permitted to appear for one single examination."
A cojoint reading of the above two paragraphs would make it obvious that the Court has taken note of the fact that everybody (including the ad hoc teachers) would be permitted to appear in the examination and question of age bar etc. would not arise.
In Para 7(a), the Court has categorically observed that all the petitioners/appellants before the supreme court and all persons eligible under the advertisement will be permitted to appear in one single examination. The judgment of the supreme court is absolutely clear, inasmuch as only one composite examination is contemplated, including not only the adhoc teachers but all others who may be eligible for appointment as per the eligibility specified in the advertisement. The petitioners, therefore, cannot contend that a separate examination is suggested for them under the order of the supreme court.
The challenge made to the advertisement on such premise, therefore, has no merit and is rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also attempted to question award of preference to adhoc teachers at the stage of interview alone, on the ground that such preference ought to have been given at the previous stage also. Para 7(c) of the supreme court judgement would be appropriate to refer, which reads as under:-
"(c) We are inclined to give some weightage to the persons who have worked as TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. It is respondent No. 3-Commission which will have to tweak this aspect and work out giving some weightage to both TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. In the case of TGTs, such weightage will have to form a part of the total marks while in case of the lecturers such weightage can be given in the process of interview."
For TGT such weightage was to be given against total marks, while in case of lecturers such weightage is to be given at the stage of interview. The stipulation in the advertisement, permitting weightage only at the stage of interview is, therefore, in consonance of the direction issued by the supreme court. The challenge made to the advertisement on such ground, therefore, fails. No other ground is raised.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021/Pkb
