Smt Usha Singh v. State of U.P. and others. This Court vie order dated

5. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated

5.11.1995, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition 2. The appointment was on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade. The petitioner submitted her joining on 06.11.1995. As the petitioner was not being paid salary she was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1020 (SS) of 1996 in re: Smt Usha Singh vs State of U.P. and others. This Court vie order dated 22.02.1996, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition, directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to work and shall be paid due salary during service treating her as having been appointed on short term vacancy. In pursuance thereto 2 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024 District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh passed order dated 5.12.1996, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, granting financial approval for payment of salary. In pursuance thereof the petitioner continued in service.

6. The writ petition was itself decided vide judgement and order dated

4.8.2017, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with Section 33-C/33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982). In pursuance thereof the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner but have rejected the same by means of order dated

3.2.2024 and hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner in accordance with Section 33-G(1)(b) of the Act, 1982 but the consideration should have been made under Section 33-G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982 and thus it is apparent that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner with patent non application of mind to the relevant provisions of the Act, 1982.

8. Elaborating the same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 05.11.1995 against the post of one Smt Saroj Srivastava who was absconding from duty. The services of Smt Saroj Srivastava have only been dispensed with by the committee of management vide its resolution dated 3.9.2000 as emerges from perusal of annexure 6 to the writ petition. Thus the appointment of the petitioner was made against a short term vacancy on account of Smt Saroj Srivastava absconding from duty which vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy with her removal from service vide resolution sated

3.9.2000 and consequently the case of the petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 33-G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982. However the respondents have considered the appointment of the petitioner by treating the said vacancy to be a substantive vacancy which is patently misconceived in as much as it is only by means of resolution dated 3.9.2000 that the service of Smt Saroj Srivastava had been dispensed with and till such time the 3 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024 actual dispensing with her service took place the said vacancy only remained a short term vacancy and consequently the respondents have erred in considering the claim of the petitioner under Section 33G(1)(b) of the Act, 1982.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit has justified the order impugned by indicating that as the service of Smt Saroj Srivastava had been eventually dispensed with vide resolution of September 2000 as such the vacancy should be treated as substantive vacancy and consequently the case of the petitioner has correctly been considered by treating the appointment against substantive vacancy.

10. The aforesaid argument of learned Standing Counsel is found to be patently fallacious considering the fact that at the time the petitioner was appointed on 5.11.1995 admittedly against the vacancy of Smt Saroj Srivastava her services had still not been dispensed with rather the dispensation of services had only been done vide resolution dated 3.9.2000 and consequently at the time of appointment of the petitioner she can only be said to have been appointed against the short term vacancy having arisen on account of Smt Saroj Srivastava absconding from duty. Thus it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 33G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982 which categorically provides that where any teacher had been appointed by direct recruitment in trained graduate grade on and after 7.8.1993 but not later than January 25 1999 against short term vacancy and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy and the said person had been continuously serving in the institution from the date of said appointment upto the date of commencement of the Amendment Act 2016 would be entitled for being considered for regularisation.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion the writ petition is allowed.

12. The order impugned dated 3.2.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and relevant rules keeping in view the aforesaid discussion. 4 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024

13. Let the order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is regularised obviously consequences shall follow. August 27, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Abdul Moin,J.)

5. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated

5.11.1995, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition 2. The appointment was on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade. The petitioner submitted her joining on 06.11.1995. As the petitioner was not being paid salary she was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1020 (SS) of 1996 in re: Smt Usha Singh vs State of U.P. and others. This Court vie order dated 22.02.1996, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition, directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to work and shall be paid due salary during service treating her as having been appointed on short term vacancy. In pursuance thereto 2 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024 District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh passed order dated 5.12.1996, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, granting financial approval for payment of salary. In pursuance thereof the petitioner continued in service.

6. The writ petition was itself decided vide judgement and order dated

4.8.2017, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with Section 33-C/33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982). In pursuance thereof the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner but have rejected the same by means of order dated

3.2.2024 and hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner in accordance with Section 33-G(1)(b) of the Act, 1982 but the consideration should have been made under Section 33-G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982 and thus it is apparent that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner with patent non application of mind to the relevant provisions of the Act, 1982.

8. Elaborating the same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 05.11.1995 against the post of one Smt Saroj Srivastava who was absconding from duty. The services of Smt Saroj Srivastava have only been dispensed with by the committee of management vide its resolution dated 3.9.2000 as emerges from perusal of annexure 6 to the writ petition. Thus the appointment of the petitioner was made against a short term vacancy on account of Smt Saroj Srivastava absconding from duty which vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy with her removal from service vide resolution sated

3.9.2000 and consequently the case of the petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 33-G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982. However the respondents have considered the appointment of the petitioner by treating the said vacancy to be a substantive vacancy which is patently misconceived in as much as it is only by means of resolution dated 3.9.2000 that the service of Smt Saroj Srivastava had been dispensed with and till such time the 3 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024 actual dispensing with her service took place the said vacancy only remained a short term vacancy and consequently the respondents have erred in considering the claim of the petitioner under Section 33G(1)(b) of the Act, 1982.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit has justified the order impugned by indicating that as the service of Smt Saroj Srivastava had been eventually dispensed with vide resolution of September 2000 as such the vacancy should be treated as substantive vacancy and consequently the case of the petitioner has correctly been considered by treating the appointment against substantive vacancy.

10. The aforesaid argument of learned Standing Counsel is found to be patently fallacious considering the fact that at the time the petitioner was appointed on 5.11.1995 admittedly against the vacancy of Smt Saroj Srivastava her services had still not been dispensed with rather the dispensation of services had only been done vide resolution dated 3.9.2000 and consequently at the time of appointment of the petitioner she can only be said to have been appointed against the short term vacancy having arisen on account of Smt Saroj Srivastava absconding from duty. Thus it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 33G(1)(a) of the Act, 1982 which categorically provides that where any teacher had been appointed by direct recruitment in trained graduate grade on and after 7.8.1993 but not later than January 25 1999 against short term vacancy and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy and the said person had been continuously serving in the institution from the date of said appointment upto the date of commencement of the Amendment Act 2016 would be entitled for being considered for regularisation.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion the writ petition is allowed.

12. The order impugned dated 3.2.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and relevant rules keeping in view the aforesaid discussion. 4 WRIA No. 6314 of 2024

13. Let the order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is regularised obviously consequences shall follow. August 27, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Abdul Moin,J.)