High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73391 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57050 of 2013 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Gaur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Ram Krishna Patel,Rishabh Narain Singh,Samarath Singh,U.P. Singh,V. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samarath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.09.2013 whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected holding that he is not entitled to continue as he was appointed on short term vacancy and subsequently, the said vacancy has become substantive vacancy. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court after considering the submissions and perusing the records, passed the following orders on 25.10.2013: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State- respondent nos.1 to 4 and S/Sri U.P. Singh & Irshad Ali, Advocates representing the respondent no.6. The respondents may file counter affidavit within a month. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to respondent no.5, returnable within six weeks. Steps may be taken within a week. The petitioner was appointed against a short term vacancy in the year 1996. That short term vacancy has since been converted into a substantive vacancy in the year 2006. The petitioner is continuing teaching in the institution and also drawing his salary. The respondent no.6, who claims to be a Life Member of the Society running the institution filed a writ petition before this court challenging the appointment of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.3.2013 directing the Director of Education (Secondary) to inquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders. By the impugned order the Director of Education has directed the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the services of the petitioner are terminated forthwith and further direction has been issued to the Regional Level Committee to take appropriate action against the persons who allowed the petitioner to continue even after conversion of the short term vacancy into substantive vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) is based upon a Division Bench of this court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others [2007 (1) ESC 188 (All) (DB)]. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recently a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 31.5.2013 not agreeing with the correctness of the judgment given in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) has referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench. The first question posed in the order dated 31.5.2013 is whether an adhoc appointee against a short term vacancy would automatically ceased to be an employee upon conversion of short term vacancy into substantive vacancy It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that till date even after the conversion of the short term vacancy into substantive vacancy no regularly selected candidate by the Selection Board has been recommended. In order to facilitate teaching in the institution it would be appropriate that the petitioner may be allowed to continue till such time a regularly selected candidate comes and joins as thereafter the petitioner may not have any right to continue on the post. Accordingly as an interim measure it is provided that till further orders of this court the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) shall remain stayed. This interim order would be operative till such time a regularly selected candidate is not sent by the Selection Board." 4. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner's service has been continued and he has been paid salary regularly. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 33-G (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1982"), the post of teachers who are appointed by way of promotion or direct recruitment in short term vacancy between 07.08.1993 to 25.01.1999 are entitled for regularization subsequent to falling the said vacancy into substantive vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services. 6. In view of the said provision, as the petitioner has been appointed in short term vacancy on 14.08.1997, therefore, he is entitled for consideration of the regularization of his services. Hence, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to remand the matter to the 3rd respondent to consider his claim as per Section 33-G (a) the Act 1982 . 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent has submitted that he has no information or instructions with regard to proposal sent for regularization of the services of the petitioner but he has admitted to forward the proposal to the authorities concerned for regularization of the services of the petitioner as per Section 33-G (a) the Act 1982. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has not opposed the submissions made by the petitioner.
Decision
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the 5th respondent to send proposal to the authorities concerned for regularization of services of the petitioner keeping in view Section 33-G (a) the Act 1982 within a period of two weeks. If any such proposal is sent, the authorities concerned shall consider the same as per condition imposed under Section 33-G (a)the Act 1982 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said proposal along with copy of this order. 10. It is needless to say that in view of the interim protection, services of the petitioner shall be continued till final order is passed by the authorities concerned. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad