Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ... on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 458 of 2022
Appellant :- Dinesh Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Madhav Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel for the State-respondents.
Under challenge in this special appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is the order dated 29.09.2022 whereby Writ-A No.6489 of 2022 filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed by learned Single Judge.
Submission of learned counsel for appellant-petitioner is that writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016), whereas the said judgment does not have any application to the facts of the present case for the reason that the appellant-petitioner was seeking his regularization in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 (C) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1982').
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the matters relating to adhoc appointments in the recognized institutions in the State of U.P. in respect of adhoc teachers are now covered by the said judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) and hence there is no error in the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge.
We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have perused the records available before us.
The appellant-petitioner filed Writ-A No.6489 of 2022 with the assertion that he was appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher in Kisan Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Pakri Bhojpur, Post Rampur Kala-Tanda, Faizabad on 15.11.1992 and as such he is entitled to be considered for regularization of his services in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982.
Learned Single Judge, however, did not go into the claim of the petitioner in respect of his right of consideration for regularization in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982 and dismissed the writ petition on the basis of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).
Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982 provides that any teacher who was appointed either by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on adhoc basis as Lecturer or Trained Graduate Teacher and possesses the qualification prescribed for the post in question and further has been continuously serving the institute shall be given substantive appointment by the management of the institution. It further provides that for the purposes of consideration of substantive appointment of adhoc teachers under Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982, a Selection Committee for each region shall be constituted which shall consider the suitability/eligibility of Assistant Teacher to be given substantive appointment.
In the instant case, claim of the appellant-petitioner put forth before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher in the institution concerned on 15.11.1992 and as such it is clear that his appointment comes within the cut off date as given in Section 33 (C) (a) (i) of the Act, 1982.
Accordingly, the petitioner may not have any substantial right of straightway being given substantive appointment, however, his statutory right of consideration for being given substantive appointment as per the provisions of Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982 cannot be denied.
So far as the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) is concerned, we may only notice that the said case pertained to claim of regularization and continuance of adhoc teachers in the government aided recognized institution in the State of U.P. who are appointed on adhoc basis but who does not have any statutory right to be regularized under any of the provisions of the Act, 1982 or any other statutory provisions in the form of any legislation or rules.
In the aforesaid view, we are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) will have no application in the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ-A No.6489 of 2022 is set-aside and the writ petition is restored to the Board of learned Single Judge who is requested to decide the writ petition itself with expedition.
We may however make it clear that we have not made any observation so far as the claim of being given substantive appointment of the appellant-petitioner is concerned, which needs to be examined by learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. What persuaded us to set aside the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge is the fact that the claim of the appellant-petitioner of consideration of his case for being given substantive appointment under Section 33 (C) of the Act, cannot be denied. As to whether he is eligible or suitable or not needs to be adjudged by the Selection Committee constituted under Section 33 (C) of the Act, 1982.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the State authority shall file their counter affidavit in the writ petition within a period of four weeks.
Accordingly, we observe that parties shall complete their pleadings in the writ petition within a period of eight weeks from today and thereafter the writ petition shall be decided as observed above, with expedition.
The special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.11.2022
Renu/-
