Allahabad High Court
Anurag Kumar Upadhyaya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 24 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39779
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1216 of 2024
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Upadhyaya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pallavi Vatsala
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the prayer clause (i), as he does not want to press the aforesaid prayer clause at this stage.
The prayer is allowed.
Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Under challenge is the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 4 and issued by the opposite party no. 3, as well as, the order dated 10.11.2023wherein direction was issued by opposite party no. 2 to all the Committee of Management's of the colleges in district Pratapgarh to terminate services of the ad-hoc teachers including the petitioner, and the orders are appended as Annexure No. 2 & 3 respectively, 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 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. 6326 (S/S) of 1999 wherein the order was passed on 16.12.1999 for payment of salary and since then, he was getting salary but later on, the same was stopped, vide order dated 09.11.2023 and subsequently the Regional Level Committee, considered regularization of the services of the petitioner and rejected the same, vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2023.
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 15.09.2023. 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, Shri 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 17.05.2024 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 15.09.2023 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 17.05.2024 and matter is relegated to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter afresh.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 4 and issued by the opposite party no. 3, as well as the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 are 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 :- 24.5.2024
Lokesh Kumar
