Gyanesh Chandra Dwivedi vs The Committee Of Management ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5497 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 767 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Gyanesh Chandra Dwivedi
 
Respondent :- The Committee Of Management D.C.K.M.Inter College Muradabad
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Bajapi,R P Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

The petitioner claims to have been appointed on 13.07.2001 as Assistant Teacher by the Committee of Management. He is aggrieved by disapproval of his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools and claims entitlement to the post on which the Management appointed him. This controversy has already come to an end in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016) decided on 26.08.2020. A similar writ petition bearing Writ A No. 95 of 2011 has been decided recently on 14.09.2022 in the following terms:

"On 05.09.2022, the following order was passed:

"Mr. Ranjit Singh, learned counsel says that his client has informed that he would be engaging some other counsel. However, from perusal of record, the Court finds that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Sanjay Singh's case. Nevertheless, one opportunity is given to the petitioner to engage whomsoever he wants to engage.

Put up this case on 12.09.2022 as first case of the day.

Mr. Ranjit Singh, learned counsel who is present shall inform the concerned accordingly."

On 12.09.2022, the following order was passed:

"As prayed by Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate who proposes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, put up day after tomorrow i.e. on 14.09.2022."

Today, Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner and files Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.

The case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.08.2020 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (Sanjay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), the said judgment reads as under:

"1. The present dispute is a reflection of the mess in the educa- tion system where starting from the primary level to the highest level adhocism seems to prevail in the appointment of teachers and lecturers in turn having consequences for the students who need to benefit from the best education process. That has not been so.

2. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned judg- ment (Writ Petition No.655 of 2014 Abhishek Tripathi vs. State of U.P. through Secy.Secondary Education, Lko. & Ors. decided on 17th December, 2015) has been rendered to bring an end to the adhocism which was prevailing. The impugned judgment recognizes the mess which is created to which all are contributory but ultimately deemed it proper to decline relief.

3. We have been hearing this matter from time to time to find the solution. We may say at the inception that we are not in disagreement with what has been set out in the impugned judgment but then this Court has the benefit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties and we are taking recourse to this to deal with the mess which is before us i.e. a complete adhocism in the working of the education system whereby TGTs and lecturers have been working for years and decades without a regularization. We do find that everyone is to blame for this scenario as what was an adhoc arrangement never fructified in the proper regularization or by holding examination in which recruitment could take place. If the recruitments did take place, that was periodic in terms of examination held after long period of time.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length earlier and even today to find a solution to the problem. Our attention has also been drawn to the last additional affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and what emerges is that the State proposes to hold a competitive examination for recruitment of 15000 TGTs and lecturers both (if there are more existing vacancies reported as per rules, the Commission should take care to advertise even for those vacancies). Insofar as the parties before us are concerned, whether as appellants/petitioners or as interventionist, on verification it was found that there are 659 persons before this Court and out of them information regarding 112 persons could not be traced out in absence of details. The details are available only for 547 adhoc teachers (in view of appellants disputing, this is subject to further verification) being 84 lecturers and 463 TGT grade teachers as set out in paragraph 11 of this affidavit.

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.

6. A concern has been expressed by learned counsel for the appellants and applicants that there may be persons who may have rendered long period of service as adhoc and if they really participate in the examination and are even successful, they may not get benefit of the past service, specially retirement benefits, as some of them may be near the age of retirement than the fresh candidates.

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.

(b) Such of the persons who are successful, would have to go through a process of interview insofar as the post of lecturers is concerned, as we are informed that the post of TGTs the interviews have been dispensed with.

(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.

(d) The advertisement to be issued should contain the terms of these directions issued by us today.

(e) We make it clear that the decision as aforesaid will be final of the Commission and no further litigation will be entertained in respect thereof.

(f) Insofar as the verification of past service is concerned, the concerned teachers/lecturers would give the particulars and details to the Commission for obtaining such weightage and that aspect will be verified by the Commission in consultation with the State Government as we are told that it is the State Government which would have the wherewithal to do the needful. Needless to say that aspect will also be final without any further litigation being entertained in that behalf.

(g) In view of the weightage given, for the same the examination process can be completed.

(h) The other aspect is that apart from the weightage, the period which has been verified as having been spent in teaching as adhoc, would be counted for purposes of retiral benefits of the TGTs and Lecturers.

8. On having considered and on having issued the aforesaid directions, we also feel it is necessary to direct that we are not faced with such a situation in future. We would thus like to direct the State and the Commission to lay down a schedule for periodically holding examinations so that it creates employment opportunities and also the students are benefitted. We would require the Commission to not only take into consideration the existing but also future vacancies reported as per rules for purposes of holding such examinations in future. This should be strictly followed. The learned Advocate General states that this aspect is being taken care of.

9. In view of the petitioners/appellants in their own case having made the ground on the basis of Section 16-E(sub-section 11) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1971 that where teachers have been working for period against substantive vacancies temporarily, there is a provision to give benefits to them, we consider appropriate that the benefits of past service would be rendered only to such of the persons who have been appointed temporarily in accordance with the provisions of this Section. We expect the State to be fair in this matter in recognizing the various nature of vacancies which may have arisen.

10. We have also considered the prayer made in IA No.48618 of 2020 in SLP(Civil)Nos.19561-19562 of 2019. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect and have taken cognizance of the fact that there may be teachers/lecturers who are working and not paid for almost two years. The second concern is that till this examination process is completed, a prayer is made on behalf of the petitioners/appellants and the applicants that they should be permitted to continue.

11. On having examined the issue, we feel it will be appropriate to direct that the teachers/lecturers who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions, against appointments made in compliance with Section 16-E (sub- section 11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/lecturers.

12. We end with the hope that we will never be faced with the aforesaid situation again and the State Government and the Commission will also make every endeavour to ensure that the order is complied in its true intent and spirit and specially the aspect of holding examinations for the future taking into consideration all current and future vacancies reported as per rules is followed in times to come. We need not emphasize that education in a very important role performed by a State apart from the area of medical assistance to citizens and thus it is necessary that the full benefit is extended to the students which can only take place if the full strength of teachers is available at the requisite time. This in turn requires compliance with the aforesaid directions for the future.

13. Since there is always hope, we hope for a better future.

14. The aforesaid exercise by the Commission in consultation with the State Government should be completed well in time to ensure that at least in the session commencing in July, 2021 all teachers up to date are in place.

15. All the appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms aforesaid.

16. All pending applications also stand disposed of."

The petitioner has been working as LT Grade Teacher in the opposite party no. 4-Institutoin in terms of the interim order dated 11.01.2011, however, his rights, if any, are now restricted in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).

On being asked as to whether the petitioner appeared in the selection held by the Board in pursuance to the said judgment vide advertisements No. 1 and 2 of 2021, learned counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner did not appear.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to pass any order in favour of the petitioner

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government proposes to frame some policy for adjustments of ad hoc teachers such as the petitioner on honorarium basis. He says that policy will be applicable only to those Teachers who are still working on the date of issuance of the policy.

On being asked, learned counsel for the State and the petitioner's submitted that the matter is still under consideration and no policy has been issued by the State Government as yet.

In this view of the matter, there is nothing that this Court can do anything in favour of the petitioner. The matter stands concluded by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh's case quoted hereinabove, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in terms thereof.

Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner says that if any policy is framed in future, then, the petitioner will be prejudiced by this order. There is no policy before the Court as on date. As and when the policy is issued, and if there is any cause, then the petitioner can raise a grievance, but, there is nothing that can be done at this stage."

The facts and issues are same, therefore, this petition is disposed of in the same terms in which Writ A No. 95 of 2011 has been disposed on 14.09.2022 as aforesaid.

[Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 20.2.2023

Santosh/-