Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Court No. - 3 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 131 of 2022 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Respondent :- Kunwar Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Shantanu Khare Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State- appellants and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. This special appeal has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 15.09.2021 in Writ-A No. 17576 of 2018 (Kunwar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) passed by the learned Single Judge.
Decision
The impugned judgment is reproduced below:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to have a glance at Section 33-C of the Act. Section 33-C(a)(i) of the Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short the Act of 1982)which reads as under: "Section 33-C(a)(i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer Grade or the Trained Graduate grade;" A bare reading of Section 33-C(a)(i) of the Act shows that any teacher, who was appointed by direct recruitment in the Trained Graduate on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, and fulfilled other eligibility criteria provided under Section 33-C(a)(i) shall be appointed on regular basis by the Committee of Management. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed on ad hoc basis by order dated 18.8.1991 and the petitioner joined on 21.8.1991 in the College. The appointment of the petitioner was disapproved by the DIOS by order dated 29.8.1991, which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 which was dismissed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the DIOS. The DIOS, thereafter, by order dated 3.12.1992 accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the short term vacancy which came into existence due to retirement of one Sri Raj Singh. The order of approval dated 31.12.1992 was modified by order dated 22.10.1998 and the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was accorded by the D.I.O.S. on the substantive vacancy on the retirement of Sri Raj Singh. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is getting the salary since the date of approval, i.e., 5.11.1992. By order dated 22.10.1998, earlier order of approval dated 3.12.1992 was modified. The petitioner has been allowed to continue on the basis of the aforesaid approval order and the petitioner has retired. In view of the undisputed factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the Regional Screening Committee has erred in entering into the validity of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, which has been granted about 35 years ago and the petitioner has been allowed to continue since then and paid salary till the date of retirement without any objection. Therefore, the first objection by the Regional Screening Committee that the approval to the appointment of the petitioner by the D.I.O.S. could not have been accorded is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The second objection that the petitioner has not received salary for the period 21.8.1991 to 4.11.1992 is also misconceived. In the instant case, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been accorded in the year 1992 by order dated 3.12.1992 with effect from 5.11.1992 and the petitioner is continuing since then. As per Section 33-C of the Act a teacher, who has been appointed by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18 is to be granted the benefit of regularization. In the case in hand, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been granted within the cut off date provided under Section 33- C(a)(i) and, therefore, the second objection of the Regional Screening Committee that the petitioner has not received salary for the period 21.8.1991 to 4.11.1992 is also misconceived and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, for the reasons given above, this Court finds that the order of the Regional Screening Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization is misconceived and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, accordingly, set aside. Normally, this Court would have relegated the matter to the Regional Screening Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner, but in the instant case, the petitioner has already retired, and the facts are undisputed and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Regional Screening Committee only on the aforementioned ground and not on any other grounds. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to refer the matter back to the Regional Screening Committee. Accordingly, this Court commands the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits as is applicable to the petitioner. The competent authority may pass appropriate order, accordingly, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs." It has not been disputed before us that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 18.08.1991 on the post of assistant teacher and he joined on 21.08.1991. Initially, the approval of the appointing authority was not granted by the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 29.08.1991 against which a writ petition was filed in the year 1992 which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned D.I.O.S. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.12.1992, the D.I.O.S. accorded the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on short term vacancy but subsequently, the order of approval was modified by the order dated 22.10.1998 and the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was accorded by the D.I.O.S. on the substantive vacancy which occurred on the retirement of one Sri Raj Singh. By the order impugned, the approval of the petitioner made about three decades ago has been questioned. Consequent thereto, regularization has been denied. Learned Single Judge has referred to the provisions of section 33-C (a) (i) of U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 which provides that 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 ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Grade, shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against the substantive vacancy on 18.08.1991 and the approval was granted by the D.I.O.S. on 03.12.1992 against short term vacancy which was subsequently modified vide order dated 10.02.1998 and the approval was accorded on the substantive vacancy. Thus, the petitioner became entitled for regularization in terms of the aforesaid provisions. Under the circumstances, we do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2022 Madhurima Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.03.15 15:36:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad