Allahabad High Court
Ram Dhani And Another (In Wria ... vs The State Of U.P. ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 143 of 2022
Appellant :- Ram Dhani And Another (In Wria 14714 Of 2018)
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Secondry Edu. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Ali,Mohd Wajid Irfan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ishwar Dutt Shukla
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Order on Condonation of Delay Application
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, learned State Counsel and Sri Durgesh Kumar Pathak holding brief of Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and 5 and having gone through the contents of application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that delay has satisfactorily been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, learned State Counsel and Sri Durgesh Kumar Pathak holding brief of Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and 5.
This is an intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court whereby a challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby claim of the appellants-petitioners for continuance in employment against class IV post in the institution concerned has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that the appellants-petitioners were appointed by the Management of the Institution by written order of appointment, however, when the appellants-petitioners put their claim seeking regularization of their services, the appellants-petitioners have been disengaged by an oral order terminating their services.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that learned Single Judge, while passing judgment and order under appeal, has categorically held that appointment of the appellants-petitioners was not made against any sanctioned post and, as such, they are not entitled either to continue or to be regularized in services. In this view, the submission is that special appeal ought to be dismissed.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record available before us on this special appeal.
The writ petition by the appellants-petitioners was filed with the prayer to direct the Management or Dr. Ganesh Krishna Jetly, Inter College, Shahzadpur, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar to allow them to continue to work and discharge their duties on class IV post and further to pay their salary in accordance with law including the arrears of salary. Further prayer made in the writ petition was for quashing the alleged oral order terminating their services, dated 01.04.2018. Another prayer made in the writ petition was that the District Inspector of Schools and Director of Education (secondary) be directed to accord approval of appointment of the appellants-petitioners said to have been made on 06.12.1996 and 01.07.1998 respectively on the post of Lab Assistant/Helper(Physics and Chemistry).
Learned Single Judge while considering the submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties, has recorded a finding that appointment of the appellants-petitioners was made in an unaided section of the Intermediate College and further that their appointment itself was not made in accordance with the Regularization made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Learned Single Judge has thus recorded a finding that in view of the fact that appointment of the appellants-petitioners was not made in accordance with Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and that their alleged engagement was made by the Management of the Institution only in a section of college which was unaided, as such the prayers made by the appellants-petitioners in the writ petition could not be granted.
Learned Single Judge has also dealt with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners regarding termination of services by oral order and has categorically arrived at a conclusion that engagement of the appellants-petitioners was not made as per the Act 1921 nor under any other Rule or Regulation and, accordingly, the claim put forth with by the appellants-petitioners has been rejected.
Even before us, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners has not been able to satisfy the court as to under what statutory provision appointments of the appellants-petitioners were made. There is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that alleged initial engagement of the appellants-petitioners was made in the aided section of the Institution. We may further notice that allegedly appointment of the appellants-petitioners is said to have been made in the year 1996-1998 and after a lapse of a period of about 24 years the prayer was made before this Court in the writ petition seeking a direction to the District Inspector of Schools and Director of Education (Secondary) to accord approval of the appointments made before 24 years ago.
For the reason aforesaid, we are satisfied that there is no good ground to interfere in the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge which is under appeal before us in this case.
The special appeal, thus, lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
Ujjawal
