High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated

22.10.2016 passed by Joint Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut with a further direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33(C) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) taking the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.07.1991.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of going into the merits of the case, as the issue was already considered by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 filed by the petitioner and passed the following order on 15.05.2012: "There is an Institution known as Anglo Sanskrit Inter College, Mawana, Meerut (the Institution), which is stated to be recognized as well as receiving grant-in-aid. The Institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 and the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. The petitioner initially filed the writ petition challenging the orders dated 28.9.2006 by which the respondent no. 7 who was the candidate selected through the Commission was directed to be appointed in the Institution. The second order under challenge is of 13.12.2006 whereby the name of the petitioner for being granted regularization has been declined on the ground that the date of her appointment is 7.12.1993 and there is no government order for regularization of the persons appointed during this period and a further direction has been given to the Committee of Management to appoint respondent no. 7 in the Institution on the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). The third order under challenge is of 7.6.2006 wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner has been held to be 7.12.1993 and a further direction has been given to the Management of the Institution to notify the vacancy of the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the retirement of one Shri Vijay Prakash Goel on 30.6.1987 a vacancy of the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) occurred. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the said post by the Committee of Management through a process of selection pending availability of the candidate from the Secondary Education Services Commission (the Commission). This appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of an appointment dated 1.7.1991 since the papers relating to the selection proceedings had already been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut (DIOS) under the covering letter dated 9.5.1991 but no orders were received from the office of DIOS. In the meantime the petitioner also applied for her regularization. The DIOS by his order dated 7.6.2006 observed that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 7.12.1993 and there was no rules regarding regularization in that regard of the candidates appointed on or after the said date and a direction was given to the Committee of Management to notify the vacancy through the Commission. The vacancy was notified through the Commission and one Shri Jitendra Yadav-respondent no. 7 was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). By the two impugned orders dated 28.9.2006 and 13.12.2006 a direction was given by the DIOS to the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter to the respondent no. 7. I have heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and the standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by Shri Khare wherein it has been stated that the respondent no. 7 has been given appointment in the Ashok Inter College Sarawa, District Meerut vide appointment letter dated 6.7.2007 and now he has no concern with the controversy involved in the present case and the controversy in the present case is confined only with regard to the regularization of the petitioner. He further stated that the impugned orders dated 13.12.2006 and 7.6.2006 have therefore become infructuous so far as the direction for appointment of respondent no. 7 is concerned. However, so far as the order mentions that the date of the appointment of the petitioner is 7.12.1993, the petitioner still has a grievance. So far as the order dated 28.9.2006 is concerned, since the same is only a direction to the respondent no. 6 to issue appointment letter to the respondent no. 7, the relief against the said order has also become infructuous. From the perusal of the papers on record, the undisputed facts emerging are that in the letter dated 6.12.1993 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the date of appointment of the petitioner is mentioned as 1.7.1991. It is not in dispute between the parties that by the letter dated 6.12.1993 the financial approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner. However, it is pointed out that in Section 33- C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act No. 1982, the cut of date for consideration for regularization is 7.8.1993. The submission of Shri Khare is that it is not disputed to the parties that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1991 and only a financial approval was granted on 6.12.1993. He therefore, submits that once the approval was granted the appointment of the petitioner would relate back to his initial appointment on 1.7.1991. He further submits that even the letter granting approval dated 6.12.1993 mentions the date of appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis as 1.7.1991 in the grade of (1400 -2300) and, therefore, his case for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that his date of appointment is 7.12.1993 and is beyond the cut of date mentioned in Section 33-C of the Act, 1982. Shri Khare submits that since the controversy now only remains with regard to the regularization, the said controversy may be remitted to the Joint Director of Education Meerut and for that purposes effective direction may be given to the DIOS to forward the papers with regard to the appointment of the petitioner to the Joint Director of Education, Meerut. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the submission advanced across the bar, the order dated 28.9.2006 has become infructuous and no further order is required. The order dated 7.6.2006 and 13.12.2006 are set aside only to the extent that it mentions the date of appointment of the petitioner as 7.12.1993 and the matter is remitted back to the DIOS to forward the same to the Joint Director of Education within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the DIOS. The Joint Director of Education shall, thereafter, consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month thereafter. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. In the abovesaid order, the Court has set aside the findings recorded by the authorities in their order dated 13.12.2006 rejecting the services of the petitioner for regularization taking the date of appointment as 7.12.1993 and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders for regularization. When the said orders were passed on

15.05.2012, there is no existence of Section 33(G) of the Act. The State has made an amendment and insert Section 33(G) by way of notification dated 22.03.2016. Hence, the earlier findings of the Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 is that the petitioner's case is to be considered by the authorities only under Section 33 (C) not in Section 33(G) of the Act.

5. Considering the submissions and also perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006. The said judgment of the Court clearly indicates that the petitioner's appointment has to be construed from 1.7.1991 and remanded the matter to pass orders under Section 33 (C) of the Act, within a period of one month. Hence, in the said circumstances, the authorities are estopped to pass any order taking the subsequent provisions into consideration.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Joint Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut is set aside, remanding the matter to the respondents, once again, to consider her case as per the observations made by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month. If the orders are not passed within the stipulated period, it should be construed that the regularization has been done as per Section 33(C) of the Act. The respondents are also directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner, within a further period of one month.

7. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated

22.10.2016 passed by Joint Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut with a further direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33(C) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) taking the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.07.1991.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of going into the merits of the case, as the issue was already considered by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 filed by the petitioner and passed the following order on 15.05.2012: "There is an Institution known as Anglo Sanskrit Inter College, Mawana, Meerut (the Institution), which is stated to be recognized as well as receiving grant-in-aid. The Institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 and the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. The petitioner initially filed the writ petition challenging the orders dated 28.9.2006 by which the respondent no. 7 who was the candidate selected through the Commission was directed to be appointed in the Institution. The second order under challenge is of 13.12.2006 whereby the name of the petitioner for being granted regularization has been declined on the ground that the date of her appointment is 7.12.1993 and there is no government order for regularization of the persons appointed during this period and a further direction has been given to the Committee of Management to appoint respondent no. 7 in the Institution on the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). The third order under challenge is of 7.6.2006 wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner has been held to be 7.12.1993 and a further direction has been given to the Management of the Institution to notify the vacancy of the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the retirement of one Shri Vijay Prakash Goel on 30.6.1987 a vacancy of the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) occurred. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the said post by the Committee of Management through a process of selection pending availability of the candidate from the Secondary Education Services Commission (the Commission). This appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of an appointment dated 1.7.1991 since the papers relating to the selection proceedings had already been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut (DIOS) under the covering letter dated 9.5.1991 but no orders were received from the office of DIOS. In the meantime the petitioner also applied for her regularization. The DIOS by his order dated 7.6.2006 observed that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 7.12.1993 and there was no rules regarding regularization in that regard of the candidates appointed on or after the said date and a direction was given to the Committee of Management to notify the vacancy through the Commission. The vacancy was notified through the Commission and one Shri Jitendra Yadav-respondent no. 7 was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). By the two impugned orders dated 28.9.2006 and 13.12.2006 a direction was given by the DIOS to the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter to the respondent no. 7. I have heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and the standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by Shri Khare wherein it has been stated that the respondent no. 7 has been given appointment in the Ashok Inter College Sarawa, District Meerut vide appointment letter dated 6.7.2007 and now he has no concern with the controversy involved in the present case and the controversy in the present case is confined only with regard to the regularization of the petitioner. He further stated that the impugned orders dated 13.12.2006 and 7.6.2006 have therefore become infructuous so far as the direction for appointment of respondent no. 7 is concerned. However, so far as the order mentions that the date of the appointment of the petitioner is 7.12.1993, the petitioner still has a grievance. So far as the order dated 28.9.2006 is concerned, since the same is only a direction to the respondent no. 6 to issue appointment letter to the respondent no. 7, the relief against the said order has also become infructuous. From the perusal of the papers on record, the undisputed facts emerging are that in the letter dated 6.12.1993 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the date of appointment of the petitioner is mentioned as 1.7.1991. It is not in dispute between the parties that by the letter dated 6.12.1993 the financial approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner. However, it is pointed out that in Section 33- C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act No. 1982, the cut of date for consideration for regularization is 7.8.1993. The submission of Shri Khare is that it is not disputed to the parties that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1991 and only a financial approval was granted on 6.12.1993. He therefore, submits that once the approval was granted the appointment of the petitioner would relate back to his initial appointment on 1.7.1991. He further submits that even the letter granting approval dated 6.12.1993 mentions the date of appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis as 1.7.1991 in the grade of (1400 -2300) and, therefore, his case for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that his date of appointment is 7.12.1993 and is beyond the cut of date mentioned in Section 33-C of the Act, 1982. Shri Khare submits that since the controversy now only remains with regard to the regularization, the said controversy may be remitted to the Joint Director of Education Meerut and for that purposes effective direction may be given to the DIOS to forward the papers with regard to the appointment of the petitioner to the Joint Director of Education, Meerut. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the submission advanced across the bar, the order dated 28.9.2006 has become infructuous and no further order is required. The order dated 7.6.2006 and 13.12.2006 are set aside only to the extent that it mentions the date of appointment of the petitioner as 7.12.1993 and the matter is remitted back to the DIOS to forward the same to the Joint Director of Education within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the DIOS. The Joint Director of Education shall, thereafter, consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month thereafter. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. In the abovesaid order, the Court has set aside the findings recorded by the authorities in their order dated 13.12.2006 rejecting the services of the petitioner for regularization taking the date of appointment as 7.12.1993 and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders for regularization. When the said orders were passed on

15.05.2012, there is no existence of Section 33(G) of the Act. The State has made an amendment and insert Section 33(G) by way of notification dated 22.03.2016. Hence, the earlier findings of the Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 is that the petitioner's case is to be considered by the authorities only under Section 33 (C) not in Section 33(G) of the Act.

5. Considering the submissions and also perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006. The said judgment of the Court clearly indicates that the petitioner's appointment has to be construed from 1.7.1991 and remanded the matter to pass orders under Section 33 (C) of the Act, within a period of one month. Hence, in the said circumstances, the authorities are estopped to pass any order taking the subsequent provisions into consideration.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Joint Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut is set aside, remanding the matter to the respondents, once again, to consider her case as per the observations made by this Court in Writ A No. 70175 of 2006 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month. If the orders are not passed within the stipulated period, it should be construed that the regularization has been done as per Section 33(C) of the Act. The respondents are also directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner, within a further period of one month.

7. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad