High Court · 2025

1. The intra court appeal filed by the appellant-State under Chapter VIII Rule V of the High Court Rules is delayed by 166 days.

2. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit.

3. Reasons in detail have been spelt out for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection if the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.

5. Cause shown is sufficient.

6. Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned. Order on Appeal

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-State has taken us through the Division Bench judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 293 of 2025 wherein the entitlement of the appointees under Regulation 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has specifically been dealt with not only by the High Court but the other reference to the Apex Court order passed in Misc. Application No. 818 of 2021 has also been made in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. Paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under :- "15. Learned State Counsel submits that apart from the above two orders, the Supreme Court later passed another order on 7.12.2021 in Misc. Application No. 818 of 2021, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "We have perused the affidavit filed by the State Government. In terms of para 8, 1446 ad hoc teachers applied under Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) category and 9 ad hoc teachers applied under the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) category and claimed weightage on the ground of service as an ad hoc teacher. The Board directed the District Inspectors of Schools to verify the details of these candidates who had claimed weightage as ad hoc teachers. Out of these, on verification, it was found that 150 applicants were not even working as ad hoc teachers and they had claimed weightage by giving false information. That, in our view, put an end to their story. Out of the 1296 TGTs., 126 applicants have been found appointed ad hoc following procedure as prescribed, under Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, "the Act") and accordingly weightage was given to these ad hoc teachers. The aforesaid having been verified, one of the pleas raised by the applicants is that at least these people should be released their salary. We feel this is an appropriate direction to be passed for release of arrears of salary for these 126 persons, naturally if not already paid. It is next set out in the affidavit that 9 applicants had applied under the PGT category, but it was found that without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Section, they were so recruited. Insofar as the 126 candidates are concerned, due to low performance in the written examination, 123 candidates could not be selected in the final merit list for TGT category and 3 candidates have been selected in the final merit list. It has thereafter been set out that under the TGT category, 16 candidates have been selected even without giving weightage marks and similarly 3 ad hoc graduate teachers have also been selected in PGT category without giving weightage marks. On query from the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Selection Board states that if weightage had been given, 15 candidates would have made it in TGT and 3 would have made it in PGT. This is premised on the basis that if such weightage was given to all the 1296 candidates. Thus, the only issue remains for consideration of these 18 persons appointed who are stated to had not been strictly appointed in terms of Section 16 (E) 11 of the said Act. In view of the large number of vacancies in recruitment and the passage of time for which they have worked, to put a quietus to the issue, we consider appropriate that these 18 people may also be given appointment. We do so by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. The list of these applicants be published on the web site within a week. Insofar as the persons who have informed not to have been recruited in compliance of Section 16 (E) 11, that does not take away the obligation of the Institute to pay those people the salary having taken work from them. This is the burden of the Management and we cannot burden the Government. Application stands disposed of. The necessary action be taken by the respondent(s) within a maximum period of two months from today. We make it clear that this puts a quietus to the complete issue and no further proceedings before us or before the High Court are to be entertained."

9. Once the financial burden of such appointments engaged by the management is shifted upon the institution itself, any direction contrary to the mandate of law requires consideration.

10. In the circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the appointment in question is of the year 2007, we hereby modify the order passed by the writ court to the extent that the direction so issued shall be read as against the committee of the management alone and not against the state authorities.

11. The intra court appeal is accordingly disposed of. [Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 29.4.2025 kanhaiya KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. The intra court appeal filed by the appellant-State under Chapter VIII Rule V of the High Court Rules is delayed by 166 days.

2. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit.

3. Reasons in detail have been spelt out for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection if the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.

5. Cause shown is sufficient.

6. Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned. Order on Appeal

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-State has taken us through the Division Bench judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 293 of 2025 wherein the entitlement of the appointees under Regulation 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has specifically been dealt with not only by the High Court but the other reference to the Apex Court order passed in Misc. Application No. 818 of 2021 has also been made in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. Paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under :- "15. Learned State Counsel submits that apart from the above two orders, the Supreme Court later passed another order on 7.12.2021 in Misc. Application No. 818 of 2021, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "We have perused the affidavit filed by the State Government. In terms of para 8, 1446 ad hoc teachers applied under Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) category and 9 ad hoc teachers applied under the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) category and claimed weightage on the ground of service as an ad hoc teacher. The Board directed the District Inspectors of Schools to verify the details of these candidates who had claimed weightage as ad hoc teachers. Out of these, on verification, it was found that 150 applicants were not even working as ad hoc teachers and they had claimed weightage by giving false information. That, in our view, put an end to their story. Out of the 1296 TGTs., 126 applicants have been found appointed ad hoc following procedure as prescribed, under Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, "the Act") and accordingly weightage was given to these ad hoc teachers. The aforesaid having been verified, one of the pleas raised by the applicants is that at least these people should be released their salary. We feel this is an appropriate direction to be passed for release of arrears of salary for these 126 persons, naturally if not already paid. It is next set out in the affidavit that 9 applicants had applied under the PGT category, but it was found that without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Section, they were so recruited. Insofar as the 126 candidates are concerned, due to low performance in the written examination, 123 candidates could not be selected in the final merit list for TGT category and 3 candidates have been selected in the final merit list. It has thereafter been set out that under the TGT category, 16 candidates have been selected even without giving weightage marks and similarly 3 ad hoc graduate teachers have also been selected in PGT category without giving weightage marks. On query from the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Selection Board states that if weightage had been given, 15 candidates would have made it in TGT and 3 would have made it in PGT. This is premised on the basis that if such weightage was given to all the 1296 candidates. Thus, the only issue remains for consideration of these 18 persons appointed who are stated to had not been strictly appointed in terms of Section 16 (E) 11 of the said Act. In view of the large number of vacancies in recruitment and the passage of time for which they have worked, to put a quietus to the issue, we consider appropriate that these 18 people may also be given appointment. We do so by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. The list of these applicants be published on the web site within a week. Insofar as the persons who have informed not to have been recruited in compliance of Section 16 (E) 11, that does not take away the obligation of the Institute to pay those people the salary having taken work from them. This is the burden of the Management and we cannot burden the Government. Application stands disposed of. The necessary action be taken by the respondent(s) within a maximum period of two months from today. We make it clear that this puts a quietus to the complete issue and no further proceedings before us or before the High Court are to be entertained."

9. Once the financial burden of such appointments engaged by the management is shifted upon the institution itself, any direction contrary to the mandate of law requires consideration.

10. In the circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the appointment in question is of the year 2007, we hereby modify the order passed by the writ court to the extent that the direction so issued shall be read as against the committee of the management alone and not against the state authorities.

11. The intra court appeal is accordingly disposed of. [Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 29.4.2025 kanhaiya KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench