Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Shrivasatava And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13510 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Shrivasatava And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Srivastava,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
On 31.08.2020 this court has passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Raj Kumar Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.
The petitioners seek the benefit of a similar interim order dated 28.07.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 11788 (S/S) of 2020; Hari Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. which reads as under:-
"Heard Shri Sharad Pathak along with Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for State and Shri R. K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2020 to contend that a Division Bench of this Court had quashed the judgment of Single Judge in Sanjay Singh & Others vs State of UP & others with regard to entitlement of ad-hoc or officiating appointees to continue in service and receive salary, against which two special leave petitions were filed one bearing no. 8300 and the other bearing no. 5893 and that the petitioner is appellant no. 39 in civil appeal no. 5893 of 2017, wherein, the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2020 has been passed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is exploring the possibility of allowing the petitioner and similar situated teachers to undergo a process of selection but without competing with the open market candidates so that they are not thrown out from the service, although in the same vein, it has also been said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the petitioners cannot seek regularization. Therefore in this view of the matter as a candidate selected from commission has been sent for joining in place of the petitioner, this appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be frustrated, hence, he seeks a protection by means of this writ petition.
On being confronted with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Shri R. K. Singh Suryawanshi could not deny that such an order is operating as of now.
This court is conscious of the fact that ordinarily it does not interfere in such matters whether of ad-hoc or officiating teachers, but the reason this Court is interfering in this case is the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in the aforesaid civil appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as, otherwise, if the petitioner is ousted, then great prejudice would be caused to him.
Issue notice to respondents no. 5 and 6 returnable at an early date.
Connect and list along with writ petition no. 1992(SS) of 2003.
Subject to further orders being passed in the aforesaid civil appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is provided that petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post on which he is working on the some terms on which he is working at present. However, if the candidate selected by the commission is to join on some other post then he can join or he can be adjusted elsewhere in some other college as per the discretion of the concerned authorities as per law.
Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Thereafter, rejoinder affidavit shall be filed within two weeks.
List thereafter."
Issue notice to opposite parties no. 5, 6 and 7.
As the petitioners are similarly situated in the sense that they have been allowed to continue on the post of Teacher subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court wherein an order was passed on 28.02.2020, it is accordingly provided that the benefit of the order dated 28.07.2020 quoted hereinabove shall be available to the petitioners herein also on the same terms.
Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks.
List thereafter along with Writ Petition No. 11788 (S/S) of 2020. "
This writ petition has been filed by ad-hoc teachers whose rights after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016 were very limited and they would have a right to continue in service only if they succeeded in the selection held vide advertisement nos. 1/2021 or 2/2021. In the connected Writ-A No.1628 of 2022, which has been decided today, it has been informed that Sri Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava and Shiv Prasad Yadav, petitioner of this writ petition bearing no.13510 (SS) of 2020, their name does not figure in the result published by the Board in pursuance to an advertisement no.1 of 2021 which was in respect of Post Graduate Teachers.
In view of above, the petitioners-Sri Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava and Shiv Prasad Yadav do not have any further right to continue on the post in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
.
(Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 29.4.2022
Ram.
