Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others). The said writ petition was disposed of by following

4. Though, he has assailed the appointment of seventh-respondent but he has not made any substantial grounds to assail the said appointment. As the learned counsel for seventh- respondent has relied on the order of this Court in Writ A No.18166 of 2011 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others). The said writ petition was disposed of by following order in Jagbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein it has been clearly held that when the selections were made and if the Board has allotted the teachers to a particular school for want of vacancy or for any reason, if the said appointment is not able to accommodate in the said school he can be adjusted to any other school where it is required. Accordingly, the seventh- respondent selected and appointed in the institution, but for the reason that for want of vacancy the seventh- respondent be allotted in fourth- respondent Institution. Accordingly, his selection and appointment is as per procedure and Rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the notification and subject to selection process the petitioner was appointed on 18.01.1993, but the appointment was given to the petitioner on 25.08.1993 after seven months of selection. Based on the said selection the petitioner has continued in service in the fourth- respondent institution till 16.02.2009.

6. Though the seventh- respondent selected and appointed in the fourth- respondent Institution vide order dated 31.12.2003, even subsequent to his appointment the petitioner has continued in the Institution, it clearly establishes that the request letter made by the Principal of the fourth- respondent on 31.12.2003. In fact the District Inspector of Schools, Basti in his letter dated 07.01.2004 has directed the Principal of the fourth- respondent Institution to not to interfere with the working of the petitioner, that clearly establishes that the petitioner has worked even after appointment of the seventh- respondent.

7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as per Section 33-C of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982. To support his contention he has also relied on the orders passed by this Court in Firangi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others, of which paragraph nos. 7 and 8 are reproduced hereinbelow:- "7. The Act, 1982 was amended w.e.f. 20.04.1998 by introducing certain amendments including the provisions of Section 33C, which is quoted herein below:- "33-C. Regularisation of certain more appointments. (1) Any teacher who- (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; (il) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Head Master in accordance with Section 18; (b) possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2); shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising.- (i) Regional Joint Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) who shall be member, (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) who shall be a member. In addition to above members, the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be co-opted as member while considering the cases for regularisation of that district. (b) The Procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (4) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Ordinance referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act."

8. By virtue of the said amendment, all ad hoc appointees either by way of promotion or direct recruitment against a substantive vacancy, not appointed later than 06.08.1993, were entitled to be regularised and placed on probation. The aforesaid provision as noted above was introduced w.e.f. 20.04.1998 and it further provides that in order to obtain the benefit of regularisation, the concerned teacher should have been appointed prior to 06.08.1993 and should have been continuing upto the date of introduction of the said provision in the year 1998.

8. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of order passed by this Court on 27.02.2009 and also the ratio laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, as the appointment of seventh- respondent is in order, no need to interfere in the appointment of seventh- respondent. Considering the submissions of the petitioner as his case was not considered under Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, by respondent authorities which should be considered. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of remanding the matter to the respondent- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner under the said provision and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Though, he has assailed the appointment of seventh-respondent but he has not made any substantial grounds to assail the said appointment. As the learned counsel for seventh- respondent has relied on the order of this Court in Writ A No.18166 of 2011 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others). The said writ petition was disposed of by following order in Jagbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein it has been clearly held that when the selections were made and if the Board has allotted the teachers to a particular school for want of vacancy or for any reason, if the said appointment is not able to accommodate in the said school he can be adjusted to any other school where it is required. Accordingly, the seventh- respondent selected and appointed in the institution, but for the reason that for want of vacancy the seventh- respondent be allotted in fourth- respondent Institution. Accordingly, his selection and appointment is as per procedure and Rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the notification and subject to selection process the petitioner was appointed on 18.01.1993, but the appointment was given to the petitioner on 25.08.1993 after seven months of selection. Based on the said selection the petitioner has continued in service in the fourth- respondent institution till 16.02.2009.

6. Though the seventh- respondent selected and appointed in the fourth- respondent Institution vide order dated 31.12.2003, even subsequent to his appointment the petitioner has continued in the Institution, it clearly establishes that the request letter made by the Principal of the fourth- respondent on 31.12.2003. In fact the District Inspector of Schools, Basti in his letter dated 07.01.2004 has directed the Principal of the fourth- respondent Institution to not to interfere with the working of the petitioner, that clearly establishes that the petitioner has worked even after appointment of the seventh- respondent.

7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as per Section 33-C of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982. To support his contention he has also relied on the orders passed by this Court in Firangi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others, of which paragraph nos. 7 and 8 are reproduced hereinbelow:- "7. The Act, 1982 was amended w.e.f. 20.04.1998 by introducing certain amendments including the provisions of Section 33C, which is quoted herein below:- "33-C. Regularisation of certain more appointments. (1) Any teacher who- (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; (il) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Head Master in accordance with Section 18; (b) possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2); shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising.- (i) Regional Joint Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) who shall be member, (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) who shall be a member. In addition to above members, the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be co-opted as member while considering the cases for regularisation of that district. (b) The Procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (4) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Ordinance referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act."

8. By virtue of the said amendment, all ad hoc appointees either by way of promotion or direct recruitment against a substantive vacancy, not appointed later than 06.08.1993, were entitled to be regularised and placed on probation. The aforesaid provision as noted above was introduced w.e.f. 20.04.1998 and it further provides that in order to obtain the benefit of regularisation, the concerned teacher should have been appointed prior to 06.08.1993 and should have been continuing upto the date of introduction of the said provision in the year 1998.

8. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of order passed by this Court on 27.02.2009 and also the ratio laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, as the appointment of seventh- respondent is in order, no need to interfere in the appointment of seventh- respondent. Considering the submissions of the petitioner as his case was not considered under Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, by respondent authorities which should be considered. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of remanding the matter to the respondent- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner under the said provision and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad