High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Regional Selection Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court about the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.211 of 1993 i.e., filed by the petitioner. As when the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was disapproved by the competent authority i.e., District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court, and the said writ petition was dismissed therefore, petitioner preferred Special Appeal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner dated 01.07.1992 was disapproved by the respondents on three grounds. Firstly, that there is a ban on ad-hoc appointment, secondly, post had not been revived and thirdly, in view of the Ordinance No.21 of 1992, the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to make ad-hoc appointment. The Division Bench of this Court has noted the said three grounds and held that the rejection on the above grounds are contrary to the following findings:- "Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools who refused to accord approval on the following three grounds; i. There was ban on ad hoc appointment; ii. The post had not been revived; and iii. In view of Ordinance No.21 of 1092 the Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that all the three grounds, on which the approval was withheld, were illusory and non-existent. In para 16 of the writ netition it was stated that it had been held by this Court in several decisions including the decision in Km. Prabhawati Dixit Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, 1992 UPLBEC 582, that the imposition of ban on ad hoc appointment was illegal. In respect of non- revival of posts learned counsel submitted that the District Inspector of Schools was most probably relying upon Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Learned counsel has submitted that after the enforcement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, Chapter II "Regulation 20 has become redundant. In support of his plea he has cited Yogendra Nath Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 484. This authority appears to support the view canvassed by the learned counsel. So far as the third ground is concerned, learned counsel points out that Ordinance No.21 of 1992 was enforced with effect from 14th July, 1992 and the appellant has been appointed prior to that date on 1st July, 1992. On this basis it is submitted that the petitioner's ad hoc appointment could not be illegal on account of the enforcement of Ordinance No.21 of 1992. There appears to be substance in this submission of learned counsel also. From the above it would appear that there were substantial questions of law in the writ petition which required a detailed hearing with the assistance of the learned counsel. In the absence of assistance, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis of the material brought to his notice. In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant should get an opportunity to place his case through his counsel before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the State also did not have opportunity to file counter affidavit. He should also have an opportunity to obtain instructions and file a counter affidavit. In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March, 1993 is hereby set aside. The writ petition shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge for orders. Before the date fixed learned counsel for the State may serve a copy of counter affidavit upon the learned counsel for the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. Subsequently, when the petitioner case is to be considered for regularization under 33(C) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982. It was again rejected on the following grounds:- " जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक मलधयम सक पलप पतजलतत कक अवलरकन सक यह जलत हहआ वक वगरधलरर इणटर ककलकज जसरसलगगज वफररजलबलद मम शर रलमनलथ ससमन कक सहलयक अधयलपक सर०टर०गकड (शल०वश०) कक पद पर वनयसवक वदनलनक 22.08.1973 थर। शर ससमन नक अपन वनयसवक वतजथ सक वदनलगक 20.03.1979 हहए वदनकक 20.03.1979 गयक और वदनलनक 06.04.1980 वरर उपरलनत सगसथल पबनध तनत नक उक ररक कक पवत शर पकम जसगह कक वदनलनक 01.07.1992 धलरल 18 सगखयल व०स०/5905/92-93 आधलर पर अमलनय कर वदयल गयलय- मम हहई तक उक पद पर कलयररत रहतक तव वकतन पलप वकयल जजसकक वलद वह अववतवनक अवकलश पर चलक कर अपनक पद सक तयलग पत दक वदयल। इसकक लगभग 12 कर कक अनतगरत वनयसवक कक। ततकललरन जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक पत दलरल शर पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक कर वनमन वदनलनक 22.01.1993 1- वदनलगक 31.08.1993 वशकल वनदकशक उतर पदकश लखनऊ कक अररशलसककय पतलगक आवडट/31853/933 92-93 कक अनससलर ममजलक ररक पदत पर वनयसवक करनक हकतस ररक थर। 2- उक पद कर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल पसनरजरववत नहर करलयल गयल हव। अधयलदकश सनन 1992 3- आपकर पलप नहर हव। कक अनससलर ममजलक ररक पदत पर वनयसवक करनक कल अजधकलर उक सक यह सपष हव वक शर पकम जसगह यलदव कक सहलयक अधयलपक कक पद पर वनयसवक समय समबननधत पद ववजधक रप सक अनसततव मम नहह थर कयतवक उक पद पर शर पकम जसगह यल कक वनयसवक वदनलनक 01.07.1992 सक ररक हरनक कक कल वनयमलनससलर पद ममत हर जलनक कक कलरण वदनलनक 01.07.1992 कर ववजधक रप सक अनसवतव मम नहह थल। यह भर उलकखनरय हव वक पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक उक वववरणलनससलर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल अनसमरवदत नहह थर। वरर पपवर वदनलनक 06.04.1980 सक लगभग 12 जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक आखयल सक यह भर जलत हहआ हव वक शर पकम जसगह मम पलररत आदकश वदनलनक 29.11.1993 कक दलरल यरजजत ररट यलवचकल सगखयल 1948/1993 अनसपललन मम जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक आदकश वदनलनक 03.02.1994 दलरल शर पकम जसगह कर वदनकक 30.11.1993 सक वकतन भसगतलन वकऐ जलनक कक आदकश पदलन वकए गयक। इस पकलर यह सपष हव वक यलचर शर पकम जसगह यलदव, सहलयक अधयलपक कर वदनलगक 06.08.1993 अथवल इससक पपवर सहलयक अधयलपक कक रप मम करई वकतन भसगतलन नहह हहआ थल जजस कलरण वह वदनलगक 06.08.1993 कलयररत नहह मलनक जल सकतक। जजसकक पररणलम सवरप चयनबरडर अजधवनयम कक धलरल 33 ग कक अनससलर वववनयवमतरकरण कक पररजध मम नहह आतक हव। शर पकम जसगह कक सहलयक अधयलपक कक पद पर वनयसवक कक समय समबननधत पद भर ववजधक रप सक अनसततव मम नहह थल तथल पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक कल ववजधवत अनसमरदन भर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल नहह वदयल गयल। सक पपवर ववजधवत वनयसक / ग कक अतय सवमवत दलरल उपयस अनतगरत वववनयवमत वकए जलनक हकतस अहर न पलयक जलनक कक कलरण इनकक तदथर सकवलओग कल वनयवमतरकरण न वकए जलनक कल वनणरय जलयल गयल।" रकलनससलर शर पकम जसगह कर चयन बरडर अजधवनयम कक धलरल 33

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as in earlier litigation the Division Bench has categorically held that the objections/ grounds raised while disapproving is held as illegal. In the said circumstances, the authorities ought not to have raised and rejected the regularization on very same grounds. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the authorities are not entitled to sit over the order passed by this Court and cannot take any contrary view without filing any appeal against the orders. Once the findings are given by this Court, the authorities ought not to take any other view. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.03.2012 is set aside remanding back the matter to the authorities.

7. After notice the respondents have filed their counter affidavits and reiterated the very same view.

8. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench dated 22.09.1993, in fact this Court intend to take the proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, but in view of the fact that the order were passed by the authority on 17.03.2012 might have been retired.

9. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is restrained to take such action and only setting aside the order passed by the authorities on 17.03.2012, remanding the matter to take appropriate action under 33(C) within a period of one month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

10. In view of the observations made in Special Appeal No.211 of 1993 dated 22.09.1993, the present writ petition is also disposed of. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Regional Selection Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court about the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.211 of 1993 i.e., filed by the petitioner. As when the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was disapproved by the competent authority i.e., District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court, and the said writ petition was dismissed therefore, petitioner preferred Special Appeal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner dated 01.07.1992 was disapproved by the respondents on three grounds. Firstly, that there is a ban on ad-hoc appointment, secondly, post had not been revived and thirdly, in view of the Ordinance No.21 of 1992, the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to make ad-hoc appointment. The Division Bench of this Court has noted the said three grounds and held that the rejection on the above grounds are contrary to the following findings:- "Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools who refused to accord approval on the following three grounds; i. There was ban on ad hoc appointment; ii. The post had not been revived; and iii. In view of Ordinance No.21 of 1092 the Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that all the three grounds, on which the approval was withheld, were illusory and non-existent. In para 16 of the writ netition it was stated that it had been held by this Court in several decisions including the decision in Km. Prabhawati Dixit Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, 1992 UPLBEC 582, that the imposition of ban on ad hoc appointment was illegal. In respect of non- revival of posts learned counsel submitted that the District Inspector of Schools was most probably relying upon Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Learned counsel has submitted that after the enforcement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, Chapter II "Regulation 20 has become redundant. In support of his plea he has cited Yogendra Nath Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 484. This authority appears to support the view canvassed by the learned counsel. So far as the third ground is concerned, learned counsel points out that Ordinance No.21 of 1992 was enforced with effect from 14th July, 1992 and the appellant has been appointed prior to that date on 1st July, 1992. On this basis it is submitted that the petitioner's ad hoc appointment could not be illegal on account of the enforcement of Ordinance No.21 of 1992. There appears to be substance in this submission of learned counsel also. From the above it would appear that there were substantial questions of law in the writ petition which required a detailed hearing with the assistance of the learned counsel. In the absence of assistance, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis of the material brought to his notice. In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant should get an opportunity to place his case through his counsel before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the State also did not have opportunity to file counter affidavit. He should also have an opportunity to obtain instructions and file a counter affidavit. In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March, 1993 is hereby set aside. The writ petition shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge for orders. Before the date fixed learned counsel for the State may serve a copy of counter affidavit upon the learned counsel for the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. Subsequently, when the petitioner case is to be considered for regularization under 33(C) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982. It was again rejected on the following grounds:- " जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक मलधयम सक पलप पतजलतत कक अवलरकन सक यह जलत हहआ वक वगरधलरर इणटर ककलकज जसरसलगगज वफररजलबलद मम शर रलमनलथ ससमन कक सहलयक अधयलपक सर०टर०गकड (शल०वश०) कक पद पर वनयसवक वदनलनक 22.08.1973 थर। शर ससमन नक अपन वनयसवक वतजथ सक वदनलगक 20.03.1979 हहए वदनकक 20.03.1979 गयक और वदनलनक 06.04.1980 वरर उपरलनत सगसथल पबनध तनत नक उक ररक कक पवत शर पकम जसगह कक वदनलनक 01.07.1992 धलरल 18 सगखयल व०स०/5905/92-93 आधलर पर अमलनय कर वदयल गयलय- मम हहई तक उक पद पर कलयररत रहतक तव वकतन पलप वकयल जजसकक वलद वह अववतवनक अवकलश पर चलक कर अपनक पद सक तयलग पत दक वदयल। इसकक लगभग 12 कर कक अनतगरत वनयसवक कक। ततकललरन जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक पत दलरल शर पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक कर वनमन वदनलनक 22.01.1993 1- वदनलगक 31.08.1993 वशकल वनदकशक उतर पदकश लखनऊ कक अररशलसककय पतलगक आवडट/31853/933 92-93 कक अनससलर ममजलक ररक पदत पर वनयसवक करनक हकतस ररक थर। 2- उक पद कर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल पसनरजरववत नहर करलयल गयल हव। अधयलदकश सनन 1992 3- आपकर पलप नहर हव। कक अनससलर ममजलक ररक पदत पर वनयसवक करनक कल अजधकलर उक सक यह सपष हव वक शर पकम जसगह यलदव कक सहलयक अधयलपक कक पद पर वनयसवक समय समबननधत पद ववजधक रप सक अनसततव मम नहह थर कयतवक उक पद पर शर पकम जसगह यल कक वनयसवक वदनलनक 01.07.1992 सक ररक हरनक कक कल वनयमलनससलर पद ममत हर जलनक कक कलरण वदनलनक 01.07.1992 कर ववजधक रप सक अनसवतव मम नहह थल। यह भर उलकखनरय हव वक पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक उक वववरणलनससलर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल अनसमरवदत नहह थर। वरर पपवर वदनलनक 06.04.1980 सक लगभग 12 जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक आखयल सक यह भर जलत हहआ हव वक शर पकम जसगह मम पलररत आदकश वदनलनक 29.11.1993 कक दलरल यरजजत ररट यलवचकल सगखयल 1948/1993 अनसपललन मम जजलल ववदललय वनररकक वफररजलबलद कक आदकश वदनलनक 03.02.1994 दलरल शर पकम जसगह कर वदनकक 30.11.1993 सक वकतन भसगतलन वकऐ जलनक कक आदकश पदलन वकए गयक। इस पकलर यह सपष हव वक यलचर शर पकम जसगह यलदव, सहलयक अधयलपक कर वदनलगक 06.08.1993 अथवल इससक पपवर सहलयक अधयलपक कक रप मम करई वकतन भसगतलन नहह हहआ थल जजस कलरण वह वदनलगक 06.08.1993 कलयररत नहह मलनक जल सकतक। जजसकक पररणलम सवरप चयनबरडर अजधवनयम कक धलरल 33 ग कक अनससलर वववनयवमतरकरण कक पररजध मम नहह आतक हव। शर पकम जसगह कक सहलयक अधयलपक कक पद पर वनयसवक कक समय समबननधत पद भर ववजधक रप सक अनसततव मम नहह थल तथल पकम जसगह कक वनयसवक कल ववजधवत अनसमरदन भर सकम अजधकलरर दलरल नहह वदयल गयल। सक पपवर ववजधवत वनयसक / ग कक अतय सवमवत दलरल उपयस अनतगरत वववनयवमत वकए जलनक हकतस अहर न पलयक जलनक कक कलरण इनकक तदथर सकवलओग कल वनयवमतरकरण न वकए जलनक कल वनणरय जलयल गयल।" रकलनससलर शर पकम जसगह कर चयन बरडर अजधवनयम कक धलरल 33

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as in earlier litigation the Division Bench has categorically held that the objections/ grounds raised while disapproving is held as illegal. In the said circumstances, the authorities ought not to have raised and rejected the regularization on very same grounds. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the authorities are not entitled to sit over the order passed by this Court and cannot take any contrary view without filing any appeal against the orders. Once the findings are given by this Court, the authorities ought not to take any other view. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.03.2012 is set aside remanding back the matter to the authorities.

7. After notice the respondents have filed their counter affidavits and reiterated the very same view.

8. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench dated 22.09.1993, in fact this Court intend to take the proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, but in view of the fact that the order were passed by the authority on 17.03.2012 might have been retired.

9. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is restrained to take such action and only setting aside the order passed by the authorities on 17.03.2012, remanding the matter to take appropriate action under 33(C) within a period of one month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

10. In view of the observations made in Special Appeal No.211 of 1993 dated 22.09.1993, the present writ petition is also disposed of. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad