Allahabad High Court
Manju Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25721 of 2009
Petitioner :- Manju Shukla
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Pratap Singh,Deo Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of Management and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi at Cane Growers Nehru (P.G.) College, Golagokaran Nath, District Kheri till the joining of any candidate regularly selected by the U.P. Higher Education Commission at that institution.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, it remains undisputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post above described on 21.08.2008, pursuant to the selection purportedly held in accordance with law under the Government Order dated dated 07.04.1998. In that regard, it appears that due advertisement were issued by the Committee of Management of the institution above named on 04.07.2008 and 08.07.2008 in daily newspaper. The issue of grant of approval to the petitioner's appointment lead the petitioner to file a writ petition bearing no. 607 of 2009 (Manju Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of with the direction upon the said authorities to take a final decision in respect to grant of approval claimed by the petitioner. That approval appears to have been granted by the Director Higher Education vide his communication dated 4.3.2009 referred to in the other communication issued by the Committee of Management on 6.3.2009. Since then, the petitioner continue to receive due payment of salary etc.
4. In such fact background, the present writ petition was filed to resist the obstructions made by the then Committee of Management of the Institution in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner. The petitioner based her claim on the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Anurag Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others [(2008) 2 UPLBEC 1979].
5. In the above noted decision of the Division Bench, it was categorically observed as under :
"69. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:
(a) Part-time teachers appointed under the Government Order dated 17.04.1998 would continue to function as such till regularly selected candidates recommended by the Commission joins, or in terms of the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004 whichever is earlier.
(b) Such Part-time teachers shall be entitled to payment at the rate provided for under the Government Order on per lecture basis subject to the maximum prescribed, they are not entitled to salary at par with regular Lecturers.
(c) Absorption under Section 31-E of the Commission's Act shall not be effected in favour of any part-time teacher till the Hon'ble Supreme Court considers and decide the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004.
(d) Absorption, if any, of part-time teachers under Section 31-E of the Act subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (if it is decided in favour of part-time teachers) would be considered against such substantive vacancies which had not been advertised by the Commission till the enforcement of Act No. 46 of 2006.
(e) The Director of Higher Education shall ensure that all existing vacancies are requisitioned by the Management/Principal of the recognized affiliated and aided Degree Colleges within the time specified above and the Commission in turn shall ensure that regular selection are made against the said vacancies within one year from the date the requisition is received after following the procedure prescribed. The Director shall direct placement of the selected candidates immediately thereafter. There should be no complaint to this Court that selections could not be made by the Commission because of absence of Chairman/other member/other facilities being not made available by the State."
6. It appears, SLP (Civil) No. 84-85/2004 (S. Arumugham & Ors.; Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.;) has been dismissed on 16.01.2004. Upon present petition being filed, the following order was passed on 18.05.2009 :
"Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
The petitioner's case is that she was appointed as Lecturer on honorarium basis in Cane Growers Nehru (P.G.) College, Golagokaran Nath, District Kheri in the year 2008 and her appointment was also approved by the Director of Higher Education but respondent No.3 is pressurizing the petitioner not to come to the college. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Anurag Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others [2008 (2) UPLBEC 1979].
Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to respondent No. 3.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing or till regularly selected candidate by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission joins the post, the petitioner will not be discontinued merely on the ground that her appointment as honorarium Lecturer (Hindi) was for a fixed term."
7. The aforesaid order was vacated and the petition came to be dismissed in default on 04.05.2012. However, that order was recalled on 13.09.2018.
8. In the meanwhile, when the petition remained dismissed, service of the petitioner came to be terminated vide further order dated 29.05.2018. That became subject matter of challenge in the connected writ petition in Writ-A No. - 16562 of 2018 (Manju Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). Therein vide order dated 13.09.2018, the operation and effect of the termination order dated 29.05.2018 was stayed. However, that order itself was stayed by the Supreme Court on 11.01.2019 in Special Leave to Appeal No. 16 of 2019 (Committee of Management Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others). That special leave to appeal has been disposed of by following order dated 09.02.2021 :
"The service of respondent No.5 who was working as Lecturer in Hindi was terminated by the petitioner on 29.05.2018 on the ground that she did not possess the minimum qualifications at the time of appointment. The Order of termination was stayed by the High Court by an interim Order dated 13.09.2018 in Writ Application no. 16562 of 2018.
On 11.01.2019, this court issued notice and stayed the operation of Order dated 13.09.2018 of the High Court. As this Special Leave Petition is against an interim Order passed by the High Court, there is no point in keeping this Special Leave Petition pending. We are inclined to request the High Court to decide the Writ Application No.16562/2018 at the earliest, not later than 3 months from today. The interim Order dated 11.01.2019 shall continue to be in force till the Writ Application is decided.
We are informed that a connected writ Petition No.25721 of 2009 which was initially dismissed for default was later restored to its original number and is pending in the High Court. Writ Petition No.25721 of 2019 shall be adjudicated along with Writ Application 16562 of 2018.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
9. Thus, though the rights of the petitioner with respect to the termination may hinge on the result of the Writ-A No. - 16562 of 2018 (Manju Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), insofar as the present petition is concerned, same is disposed of in terms of paragraph-69(a) of Anurag Tripathi and others (supra).
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
SA
