High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Regional Promotion Committee, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, with further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular and permanent lecturer in Art w.e.f. 22.03.2016 with all consequential benefits.

3. Controversy involved in this petition arises from rejection of regularization of the petitioner in service as lecturer in Art.

4. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher LT grade on 14.08.1991. His appointment was approved and services were regularized in the year 2008. After retirement of one lecturer in Art, the petitioner was granted ad-hoc promotion by resolution of the committee of management on 13.05.1995. Vide order dated 18.06.1996, the said appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Education-II, Meerut and accordingly, the petitioner has continued as lecturer in Art. After insertion of Section 33 - C of the provision of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, the petitioner is entitled for regularization under the said provisions. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application. The Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.1999.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.2888 of 2000 wherein initially interim order was granted. While pending the petition, the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur, vide order dated 03.01.2008 regularized services of the petitioner as assistant teacher in LT grade. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.05.2013. By virtue of the said disposal, the petitioner has continued in the post of lecturer.

6. Consequent to the amendment and also circular issued by Director of Education (Secondary) dated 03.06.2016, the management sent proposal once again vide covering letter dated 28.07.2016 for regularization of the petitioner as lecturer in Art. Despite the repeated requests, the respondents did not consider the case for regularization. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the Writ-A No.4879 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed on 02.02.2017. In compliance of the said orders, the Regional Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization on 15.04.2017, on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled five years experience in the post of assistant teacher in LT grade for consideration to the post of lecturer.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Writ-A No.19613 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 which reads as follows: "It is submitted that the petitioner's claim for regularization was not being considered earlier. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4879 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 2.2.2017 issuing a direction to the Joint Director of Education to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Joint Director of Education fixed a date for hearing, on which the petitioner appeared and placed his claim before the Joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education then reserved the order and now, the impugned order has been passed by the Four Members of the Committee. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, the petitioner did not appear before the Four Member of the Committee and he appeared before the Joint Director of Education. As such, the other three members of the Committee had no occasion to hear the claim of the petitioner. Secondly, the order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that at the initial stage for the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, the petitioner was not eligible as he did not have experience of five years of teaching as L.T. Grade Teacher as is required under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. It is submitted that Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules is applicable only for regular promotion but not for ad-hoc promotion. The ad-hoc promotions are made on the contingency of vacancy having occurred and therefore, the qualified person could be granted ad-hoc promotion. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On one hand, it does appear that the petitioner had appeared only before the Joint Director of Education and now the Committee of the four members has rejected the claim of the petitioner as no where from the petition, it appears that the petitioner had appeared before the three member committee for considering his claim. That apart, the claim of the petitioner that he did not possess the requisite experience to reject the claim after 21 years appears to be a little harsh and very technical. As such, in my view, the Regional Regularization Committee has to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh."

8. Consequent to the above said order, the respondents once again considered the case of the petitioner and rejected on the very same grounds vide impugned order dated 22.08.2017.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially, rejection was made by the committee of management only on the ground that as per Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1998"), the petitioner is not eligible. Learned counsel further submits that the said Rule is not applicable to the post for appointment on ad-hoc basis. Only to meet exigency of services, the management has considered the case of the petitioner and he was appointed to the post of lecturer based on eligibility. The said appointment was already approved by the competent authority and he has continued in the said post from 1995. After that, the petitioner has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018.

10. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of invoking Rule 14 of the Rules 1998. The said order was set aside by this Court in Writ-A No.19613 of 2017 and the respondents were restrained to reject the claim of the petitioner on the very same grounds. Admittedly, services of the petitioner have been approved by the competent authority way back in the year 1996. The petitioner has continued in the said post and has retired on 31.03.2018. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is not only contrary to records but also it is contrary to the orders passed by the Court in Writ-A No.19613 of 2017.

11. In reply to the above said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has made submissions, though admitted in paragraph no.22 of the counter affidavit with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as assistant teacher in LT grade on 14.08.1991, approval of appointment and also appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis in the post of lecturer and approval by the competent authority to the said post but they have mainly contended that as per Rule 14 of the Rules 1998, the petitioner has not been treated in regular services as on date of appointment. Hence, he is not eligible for regularization.

12. Considering the submissions made, and on perusal of the records, as the respondents have already treated the petitioner in services, granted approval in favour of the petitioner and he continued and retired from the said post. In this view of the matter, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner under Section 33 -C of the provision of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 only on the ground of not having five years experience at the time of ad-hoc appointment to the post of lecturer.

13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Regional Promotion Committee, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, is set aside, directing the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner and grant all promotional as well as retiremental benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Regional Promotion Committee, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, with further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular and permanent lecturer in Art w.e.f. 22.03.2016 with all consequential benefits.

3. Controversy involved in this petition arises from rejection of regularization of the petitioner in service as lecturer in Art.

4. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher LT grade on 14.08.1991. His appointment was approved and services were regularized in the year 2008. After retirement of one lecturer in Art, the petitioner was granted ad-hoc promotion by resolution of the committee of management on 13.05.1995. Vide order dated 18.06.1996, the said appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Education-II, Meerut and accordingly, the petitioner has continued as lecturer in Art. After insertion of Section 33 - C of the provision of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, the petitioner is entitled for regularization under the said provisions. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application. The Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.1999.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.2888 of 2000 wherein initially interim order was granted. While pending the petition, the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur, vide order dated 03.01.2008 regularized services of the petitioner as assistant teacher in LT grade. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.05.2013. By virtue of the said disposal, the petitioner has continued in the post of lecturer.

6. Consequent to the amendment and also circular issued by Director of Education (Secondary) dated 03.06.2016, the management sent proposal once again vide covering letter dated 28.07.2016 for regularization of the petitioner as lecturer in Art. Despite the repeated requests, the respondents did not consider the case for regularization. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the Writ-A No.4879 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed on 02.02.2017. In compliance of the said orders, the Regional Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization on 15.04.2017, on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled five years experience in the post of assistant teacher in LT grade for consideration to the post of lecturer.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Writ-A No.19613 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 which reads as follows: "It is submitted that the petitioner's claim for regularization was not being considered earlier. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4879 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 2.2.2017 issuing a direction to the Joint Director of Education to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Joint Director of Education fixed a date for hearing, on which the petitioner appeared and placed his claim before the Joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education then reserved the order and now, the impugned order has been passed by the Four Members of the Committee. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, the petitioner did not appear before the Four Member of the Committee and he appeared before the Joint Director of Education. As such, the other three members of the Committee had no occasion to hear the claim of the petitioner. Secondly, the order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that at the initial stage for the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, the petitioner was not eligible as he did not have experience of five years of teaching as L.T. Grade Teacher as is required under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. It is submitted that Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules is applicable only for regular promotion but not for ad-hoc promotion. The ad-hoc promotions are made on the contingency of vacancy having occurred and therefore, the qualified person could be granted ad-hoc promotion. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On one hand, it does appear that the petitioner had appeared only before the Joint Director of Education and now the Committee of the four members has rejected the claim of the petitioner as no where from the petition, it appears that the petitioner had appeared before the three member committee for considering his claim. That apart, the claim of the petitioner that he did not possess the requisite experience to reject the claim after 21 years appears to be a little harsh and very technical. As such, in my view, the Regional Regularization Committee has to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh."

8. Consequent to the above said order, the respondents once again considered the case of the petitioner and rejected on the very same grounds vide impugned order dated 22.08.2017.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially, rejection was made by the committee of management only on the ground that as per Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1998"), the petitioner is not eligible. Learned counsel further submits that the said Rule is not applicable to the post for appointment on ad-hoc basis. Only to meet exigency of services, the management has considered the case of the petitioner and he was appointed to the post of lecturer based on eligibility. The said appointment was already approved by the competent authority and he has continued in the said post from 1995. After that, the petitioner has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018.

10. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of invoking Rule 14 of the Rules 1998. The said order was set aside by this Court in Writ-A No.19613 of 2017 and the respondents were restrained to reject the claim of the petitioner on the very same grounds. Admittedly, services of the petitioner have been approved by the competent authority way back in the year 1996. The petitioner has continued in the said post and has retired on 31.03.2018. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is not only contrary to records but also it is contrary to the orders passed by the Court in Writ-A No.19613 of 2017.

11. In reply to the above said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has made submissions, though admitted in paragraph no.22 of the counter affidavit with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as assistant teacher in LT grade on 14.08.1991, approval of appointment and also appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis in the post of lecturer and approval by the competent authority to the said post but they have mainly contended that as per Rule 14 of the Rules 1998, the petitioner has not been treated in regular services as on date of appointment. Hence, he is not eligible for regularization.

12. Considering the submissions made, and on perusal of the records, as the respondents have already treated the petitioner in services, granted approval in favour of the petitioner and he continued and retired from the said post. In this view of the matter, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner under Section 33 -C of the provision of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 only on the ground of not having five years experience at the time of ad-hoc appointment to the post of lecturer.

13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Regional Promotion Committee, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, is set aside, directing the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner and grant all promotional as well as retiremental benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad