Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that ad-hoc appointments, once absorbed against regular vacancies and followed by continuous service, cannot be invalidated due to initial irregularities. The case involved two Assistant Teachers whose decades of service were later questioned. The Court observed, “Once absorbed on regular vacancies, the appellants must be deemed in continuous service, belated action against them is unwarranted.”
Brief Facts:
The case concerns the ad-hoc appointments of Jujhar Singh and Devendra Singh as Assistant Teachers at P.N.V. Inter College, which were terminated by the DIOS for being against non-sanctioned posts. They continued in service under a court’s interim protection and were later absorbed against substantive vacancies following staff retirements.
Though their initial writ was eventually dismissed as not pressed, they remained in service. Years later, the DIOS questioned their salary disbursement, prompting another writ that was withdrawn after assurances of regularization. The school management then challenged the DIOS’s order, and the matter was referred to the Joint Director of Education (JDE).
Before the JDE’s decision, the petitioners were barred from duty but reinstated through a court order. The JDE ultimately held their appointments irregular and denied regularization. Subsequent writs by both teachers were dismissed, leading to the current special appeals before the Allahabad High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants argued that their 2006 absorption against substantive vacancies cured the initial irregularity of appointments made against non-sanctioned posts, making the earlier writ dismissal irrelevant. They claimed eligibility for regularization under Section 33A(1-B) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, having been appointed within the prescribed period, with requisite qualifications and uninterrupted service.
They further contended that the long delay in raising objections to their appointments precluded the respondents from denying regularization. Stressing that they were not responsible for the initial irregularities and had served for decades with approval, while relying on several precedents to support their claim.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the initial appointments of both the appellants in 1987 and 1989 were irregular as they were made against non-sanctioned posts, rendering them ineligible for regularisation. Citing Abhishek Tripathi vs. State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Education, Lucknow & Ors. (2015), they contended that appointments made dehors the statutory rules cannot be regularised, particularly when there were no regular vacancies available at the time of the ad-hoc appointments.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed, “The appellants having been absorbed on existing vacancies, the irregularity, if any initially in their appointments, would be deemed to have been cured as per the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Mansaram (supra) and Madras Aluminium Company Limited (supra). As per these judgments definitely if any action had to be taken, it ought to have been taken within reasonable time and that having not been taken, the appellants could not now be penalized.”
The Court relied on Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024) to underscore that the appellants were not at fault for initial irregularities, noting, “As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra), the appellants definitely were not at fault.”
It further drew on Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) and Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) to distinguish between irregular and illegal appointments, holding, “As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) we find that definitely when there was an irregularity in the appointments of the appellants, that irregularity had been removed and the appointments were regularized.”
The Bench interpreted Section 33A(1-B) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, to affirm the appellants’ eligibility for regularisation due to their ad-hoc appointments within the specified period, qualifications, and continuous service. The Apex Court criticised the JDE’s order for overlooking the 2006 absorption, stating, “The orders of the Joint Director of Education, which were passed on the fact that the initial appointment was wrongly made, were erroneously passed.”
It concluded that the appellants’ absorption on regular vacancies and continuous service entitled them to regularization, observing, “The appellants after they were absorbed on regular vacancies, it had to be taken that they were always working on the regular vacancies and since they were throughout teaching till the date when they retired, it could be taken that they were always in continuous service.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court allowed Special Appeals, emphasising the curative effect of the absorption order and the appellants’ long, uninterrupted service.
Case Title: Devendra Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors.
Case No.: Special Appeal No. - 167 Of 2024
Coram: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Appellant: Adv. Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.,Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
