Allahabad High Court
Sunil Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:26932
Judgment reserved on 7.2.2025
Delivered on 27.2.2025
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1112 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sunil Mani Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Naman Mishra,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 580 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jyoti Prakash Mishra
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, J.N. Maurya, learned Additional C.S.C. and Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioners have set up a case that they participated in a selection process to the posts of Lecturer Hindi in the respondent institution which commenced with an advertisement issued on 10.4.1997 and published in two newspapers namely Tarun Mitra and Dainik Jaunpur.
3. Petitioners have appeared before the selection committee and on basis of their respective higher quality point marks they got selected as L.T. Grade Teacher and their respective appointment letters were issued on 16.9.1997 and on the same date, DIOS, Jaunpur granted approval and thereafter petitioners joined and remained working on the said post.
4. It is further case of petitioners that due to certain dispute of rival Committee of Management of concerned College, their salary was not paid, they approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.52360 of 2000, wherein an interim order was passed on 11.12.2000 with a direction to pay their salaries. However, said order was not complied with, therefore, a contempt proceedings were also initiated and finally on 14.1.2004, the DIOS, Jaunpur has issued an order to the Manager of the institution directing him to release salary in favour of petitioners and thereafter their salaries were released also.
5. During the interaggnum period, the Writ Petition No.52360 of 2000 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.12.2013 and thereafter a restoration application was also filed, but according to the averments made in paragraph 21 of present writ petition, said restoration application despite being listed on several times, was not taken up for final hearing.
6. Consequently, the DIOS, Jaunpur vide order dated 17.8.2019 has stopped the salary of the petitioners from July, 2019 and later on vide order dated 24.3.2021, above referred restoration application was allowed and Writ Petition No.52360 of 2000 was restored to its original number and interim order also restored.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that thereafter orders were passed by the DIOS, Jaunpur as well as by higher officers to release the salary as well as arrears of salary and after much persuation finally arrears of salary were also paid to them.
8. In the above background, Writ Petition No.52630 of 2000 was allowed vide order dated 4.8.2023 with a direction to respondents to ensure payment of salary of petitioners continuously as well as for the period between 1.7.2019 to 28.7.2021 taking note that said writ petition was filed two decades ago, with a further direction to the concerned Regional Level Committee to consider case of respective petitioners for regularization in terms of Section 33-G of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, of 1982').
9. In aforesaid circumstances, case of each petitioners was considered for regularization by the Regional Level Committee and since their appointments were dehors of relevant provisions, therefore, their claim for regularization was rejected being not complied with conditions of Section 33 (chha) of Act of 1982.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at a belated stage, to put petitioners' appointment under doubt was contrary to the law as discussed in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2024 INSC 1034, that long period of service be protected and merely on basis of certain irregularities, claim for regularization may not be rejected.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the requirement, advertisement was required to be issued in two newspapers one having circulation at local level and other being at State level.
12. According to the Senior Counsel, the newspaper Tarun Mitra, has a wide circulation at State level, whereas other newspaper i.e. Dainik Jaunpur has local circulation at District Jaunpur, therefore, reasons assigned in the impugned orders were not justified and impugned orders may be set-aside.
13. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel have supported the impugned order and submitted that basic condition of advertisement was not fulfilled and in view of directions passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:159359, along with other connected cases for purpose of consideration of regularization, essential conditions under the relevant provisions must be satisfied and as the same were not complied with, therefore, claim of the petitioners was rightly rejected.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
15. It it not under dispute that an advertisement is required to be published in two newspapers, one having circulation at district level and other at State level.
16. As referred above, a newspaper namely, Dainik Jaunpur has circulation at District level and so far as other newspaper i.e. Tarun Mitra is concerned, it has circulation in Delhi and NCR Region, therefore, selection process was not proper.
17. Even though their appointments were not proper still as referred above, the petitioners on strength of an interim order have worked for almost 27 years, without any complaint and were given benefit also, and therefore, in view of Jaggo (supra) and Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 10, such appointments could be protected. The Court also takes note that petitioners are now about 61 years, therefore, in the interest of justice, impugned orders dated 5.9.2024 and 17.12.2024 are hereby set-aside and its legal consequence will follow.
18. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025
SB
