Allahabad High Court
Umesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 23 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39309
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3236 of 2024
Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi,Rishabh Tripathi
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri R.K. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.
Under challenge is the order dated 6.2.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 appended as Annexure No.2 along with the writ petition.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) by the Committee of Management and in case of non-grant of financial concurrence by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 2043 (S/S) of 1999 wherein the order was passed on 7.5.1999 for payment of salary and since then, he was getting salary but later on, the same was stopped, vide order dated 9.11.2023 and subsequently the Regional Level Committee, considered regularization of the services of the petitioner and rejected the same, vide the impugned order dated 6.2.2024.
He further contended that since the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner, therefore, naturally the records with respect to the appointment would be in the custody of the Committee of Management or with the office of the District Inspector of Schools but without calling for any report from the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools, the Regional Level Committee has passed the order impugned dated 6.2.2024. He has also added that the District Inspector of Schools is one of the members of the Regional Level Committee but no report has been called from the District Inspector of Schools as is apparent from the order impugned itself.
In support of his contention, he has submitted that ditto identical matter in Writ-A No.8517 of 2023, Tirthraj Vs. State of U.P. along with other connected matters has been decided by this Court, vide Judgment and order dated 17.5.2024 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit. He has also informed this Court that the petitioner has also assailed the provision of Section 33-G (8) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 in Writ-A No.9687 of 2023, which is pending consideration.
On the other hand, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the contention on some factual aspects but he could not rebut the fact that the matter is identical to those petitioners in favour of whom Judgment and order was passed on 17.5.2024 in Writ-A No.8517 of 2023, Tirthraj Vs. State of U.P. along with the connected matters.
Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires from the impugned order dated 6.2.2024 that the report from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools has not been called for by the Regional Level Committee, thus, prima facie, the decision of the Regional Level Committee seems to be taken in hasty manner. This Court has also noticed the fact that in the case of identically situated teachers, this Court has passed the order dated 17.5.2024 and matter is relegated to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter afresh.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 6.2.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Regional Level Committee to pass order afresh within a period of three months after calling the records from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools and subsequently verifying those records and consulting the Committee of Management, and while affording opportunity of hearing to the teachers concerned, if so required. It is further provided that the scheme provided under Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 shall also be strictly adhered to.
In addition, it is further provided that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service and shall be paid salary without any further break subject to the final decision taken by the Regional Level Committee. It is also directed that the petitioner as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management shall ensure their presence and co-operate with the Regional Level Committee as and when required.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
Ram Murti
