Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176766
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17522 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Regional Selection Committee, through its Chairman, Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Varanasi Region, Varanasi is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Apart from various other arguments, one of the argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that while disposing of the writ petition of Vinod Kumar Srivastava vide its judgment and order dated 30.09.2024, a specific direction has been given by this Court in paragraph -149 of the judgment that the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization. It is further observe that Committee shall ask all the Management Committee of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization. Paragraph-149 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
"149. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matters which have been remitted back to the Regularization Committee shall be considered in the light of the following directions:
(i) The Regional Regularization Committee shall accord fresh consideration in all remitted matters within a period of six weeks from the date of remand.
(ii) As far as possible, the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization.
(iii) The Committee shall ask all the Management Committees of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the candidates within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In case the documents are not provided by the Management Committees, the Regularization Committee shall proceed against the institution in question under the provisions of Act of 1921.
(iv) The Regularization Committee shall further accord due consideration to provision of Act of 1982 while considering the claim for regularization especially for all those candidates whose case fall under Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G.
(v) It is further provided that in view of clarification of Government Order dated 26.09.2024, all the candidates whose matters are under consideration before the Regional Regularization Committee, shall be paid their salary which has been stopped pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2023 within a period as prescribed in the clarification order dated 26.09.2024, till their claims are finally decided.
(vi) Further all the candidates whose claim has not been decided by the Regularization Committee shall be permitted to work.
(vii) It is clarified that in all those cases where the claim for regularization was rejected and the writ petition has been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remitted back for fresh consideration, those candidates shall be entitled for their entire salary till their claim is decided afresh. "
3. It is argued that taken into consideration the aforesaid judgment, a Government Order dated 04.10.2024 was also issued by the State-Government, copy of which is placed before this Court, the same is taken on record.
4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that order in question has been passed by the Regularization Committee in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra).
5. While going through the order dated 17.09.2024, the Court is of the prima facie satisfied that neither any opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner nor the Management Committee of the Institution was directed to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the petitioner.
6. In this view of the matter, the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for his salary till his claim is decided afresh.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Pramod Tripathi
