Rajveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 511 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors on 2 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70468
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52137 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kauntey Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra with consequential relief to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service under Section 33-C of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.

3. Submission is that subsequent to notification of sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, the petitioner was selected on ad-hoc basis and letter of appointment dated 20.07.1991 was issued to the petitioner and the Committee of Management has forwarded the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools on 25.07.1991. On 21.12.1992, an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the approval of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the ground that there being a prohibition from the State for making fresh appointments. The said rejection was assailed before this Court by way of Writ-A No.4289 of 1993 (R.V. Singh v. D.I.O.S. & Others) and based on the interim directions in the said writ petition, the petitioner has been continued and finally the said writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2013 with the following observations :-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that after interim order was passed by this Court, the financial approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 24.2.1993 and the petitioner is also getting his salary. He also stated that the petitioner is also entitled for regularisation under Section 33-C of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982.

No counter affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Government Order was issued on 29.6.19991 vide a TELEX message, which was followed by the Government Order dated 17.7.1991, hence, the petitioner was appointed when there was ban by the Government and as such rightly the approval was refused. He also contended that the petitioner is also getting salary in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issue regarding ban was considered in number of writ petitions by this Court. The State Government had earlier issued various Government Orders putting ban on the recruitment in the Government department. The first Government Order was issued on 29.6.19991 vide a TELEX message, which was followed by the Government Order dated 17.7.1991. In both, the TELEX as well as in the Government Order, there was prohibition against the appointment in the Government Departments and there was no reference with regard to the appointment made in the private aided institutions. By means of Government Order dated 30.7.1991, a communication was issued by the State Government which was addressed to the Chairman of the U.P.Secondary Education Service Commission placing restrictions against the recruitment which were governed by the provisions of the U.P.Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982. The said order was followed by another Circular dated 31.8.1991 that no ad hoc appointment be made in any educational institution. However, on 26.9.1991, the ban imposed by the Government Order dated 30.8.1991, was withdrawn. The short-term vacancies were to be filled by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second Order), 1982 and not by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, the refusal of the financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that when the petitioner was selected at that time, the Government has put ban on the recruitment, is unreasonable, against the provisions and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16.12.1992 and 21.12.1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra (annexure 6 and 5) are hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools, Agra is expected to consider the regularisation of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay, in accordance with law."

4. Consequent upon the disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 08.09.2014 on the following grounds :-

"???????? ???? ???????? ????????, ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????/11935/92-93 ?????? 21.12.1992 ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? 31.7.91 ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ???? ?????? 31.3.91 ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? 31 ????? 1981 ??? ???????? ?????? /???/4993/15-7-1(79)-1931 ????? 1981 ??? ???????? "????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? (????????? ?? ??? ????) ???? (?????) 1981 ?? ??????? 5 ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??, ????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? (????????? ?? ??? ????) ???? (?????) 1981 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? 4289/93 ?? ???? ????? 09.2.93 ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ????????, ???? ?? ???? ?????? 21.12.92 ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?

??? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ????, ?? ???????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????12.7.94 ??? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???"

5. The impugned order was passed solely on the ground of orders passed by the Full Bench in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551, decided on 12.07.1994.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the identical issue raised for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722, in which, Hon'ble Court held that as per the governing interpretation of legislative enactments vis-a-vis retroactivity, would apply to a situation where the statute is altered by judicial verdict and the principle is that the change so brought about, would not project on the past events or transaction so as to affect vested rights unless the judicial verdict wreaking changes in the statute by 'reading in' or 'reading down' is itself given in retroactive operation. Accordingly, the ad hoc appointments of teachers by direct recruitment made in short-term vacancies by notifying the same on the notice-board of the Institution without giving any public notice through advertisement in Newspapers having wide circulation if already approved or deemed to have been approved, would not be validated on the strength of Radha Raizada (supra).

7. In view of the above observations made in Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra), the grounds for rejection in the impugned order are contrary to the Hon'ble Court's decision. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are specific assertions in writ petition at Para Nos.24, 25, 26 and 27 which reads as follows :-

"24. That it is specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner was not made under The U.P. Secondary E.S.C. ( Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981 wherein no doubt the District Inspector of Schools had power to make such appointment.

25. That however the first time when it was held that the appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis on substantive vacancy shall be made under Section 18 read with The U.P. Secondary E.S.C. (Removal of Difficulties) (First) Order, 1981 was after the pronouncement of judgment in the case of Radha Raizada Vs. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College & Others, reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551.

26. That however the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Radha Raizada have been held to be prospective in nature and shall not invalidate the appointments already made, attention in this regard is drawn to a judgment reported in 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722, Ashika Prasad Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Others. A true copy of judgment reported in 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 is annexed as Annexure No.11 to this writ petition.

27. That even otherwise, attention in this regard is drawn to the language of Section 33-A to Section 33-C and also Section 33-F wherein there is a separate cut of date for regularization for appointments made under Section 18 and a separate cut of date for regularization under The U.P. Secondary E.S.C. (Removal of Difficulties) (First) Order, 1981. A true copy of the relevant portion of the Section 33 is annexed as Annexure No.12 to this writ petition."

8. There is no answer to the above said aspects in the counter affidavit. Hence, the appointment was not made under The U.P. Secondary E.S.C. (Removal of Difficulties) (First) Order, 1981, but the appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis in sanctioned vacancy shall be made under Section 18 read with The U.P. Secondary E.S.C. (Removal of Difficulties) (First) Order, 1981. Hence, petitioner is entitled for regularisation in Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and Section 33-C(1)(a)(i) which reads as follows :-

"Any teacher who- was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991, but not later than August 6, 1993, on an ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or the Trained Graduate grade."

9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observations made in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra), the impugned order cannot be rejected merely by applying the observations made in Radha Raizada (supra) instead of considering the case for regularisation under Section 33-C. Hence, the impugned order is being set aside and remand the matter under Section 33-C of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.

10. Referring to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that at the time of consideration for regularisation, the law laid down by the Full Bench in Radha Raizada (supra) was in vague, hence, according to the observations made in the said case, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation. Applying the ratio of the case, the appointments are contrary to The U.P. Secondary Education Service Conditions (Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the case of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

11.Considering the submissions and perusal of the order, in fact, the earlier orders were interfered by this Court in Writ-A No. 4289/1993 by noticing that after appointment, financial approval has also granted on 24.02.1993 and the petitioner is also granted salaries, hence, entitled for regularisation under Section 33-C(1)(a)(i) of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, by quashing the impugned orders bearing dated 16.12.1992 and 21.12.1992 remanding the matter to the District Inspector of Schools, Agra to pass regularisation order as per Section 33-C of UP Act No.5 of 1982. Surprisingly, without considering the said aspects, the respondents have passed the orders only based on the observations made in Radha Raizada (supra) case. In fact, on perusal of the subsequent orders passed by this Court in Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra), that issue was already clarified stating that the said law is applicable only those who are appointed subsequent to the judgement. Fact remains that the appointment of the petitioner are much before the Radha Raizada (supra) case.

12. Hence, as observed by this Court in Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra), the impugned orders are contrary to the said judgement and accordingly, the Radha Raizada case cannot be applied to the appointment. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 33-C(1)(a)(i) of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 and pass appropriate regularisation order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025

Rama Kant

(Donadi Ramesh,J.)