Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2919 (ALL)

DIPTI SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-12-05

ARUN TANDON

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Dipti Srivastava, who claims to be the working as L.T. Grade Teacher in Neena Thapa Inter College, Gorakhpur Cantt., Gorakhpur. 3. The petitioner objects to the appointment of respondent No. 7 Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Lecturer (Chemistry) in the institution on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad on the ground that (a) the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), which has been fallen vacant in the institution is within 50% quota reserved for promotion, (b) the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad selected respondent No. 7 for another institution with reference to the Advertisement No. 1/03 and that respondent No. 7 cannot be adjusted against the vacancy in the present institution as the vacancy thereof was not subject matter of Advertisement No. 1/03. The issue whereof has already been decided by this Court in the case of Indra Deo Ojha v. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2005. 4. Sri R.K. Jain Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that respondent No. 7 has been selected in pursuance to the advertisement published by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, to be appointed against a vacancy, which was subject matter of Advertisement No. 1/03 having regard to the merit secured by him in the selection. Therefore, he cannot be denied the fruits of the selection only on the ground that the vacancy against which he has been empanelled by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, is required to be filled by promotion. He submits that even if he cannot be adjusted in the present institution, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46861 of 2005 decided on 22nd September, 2006, as also in view of the fact that the vacancy is within 50% quota reserved for promotion, the respondent No. 7 has a right for being appointed in any other institution, vacancy whereof was subject matter of Advertisement No. 1/03, and where the vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) is still vacant. 5. 5. It is further contended that the Court while considering the relief to be granted in the present writ petition, may also, safeguard the payment of salary of respondent No. 7 for the period he has actually worked in the present institution. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 7. The controversy with regard to the adjustment of respondent No. 7 in the institution at Gorakhpur when he had been empanelled for another institution at Bhola Ram Maskara Inter College, Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur, is no more open for consideration before this Court, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), wherein it has been clarified that there can be no adjustment of any selected candidate from one institution to another institution against a vacancy, which has not been advertised. Consequently respondent No. 7 could not have been adjusted against the vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) in Neena Thapa Inter College Gorakhpur Cantt. Gorakhpur, inasmuch as the said vacancy has not been requisitioned to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, and was not subject matter of Advertisement No. 1/03. Accordingly the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14th October, 2005 adjusting respondent No. 7 in the present institution i.e. Neena Thapa Inter College, Gorakhpur Cantt. Gorakhpur against the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) is legally not justified and is hereby set aside. 8. This leads the Court to the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) and is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification, and whether the vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) is within 50% quota reserved for promotion or not. 9. The aforesaid issues may be examined by the Regional Level Committee of which the Regional Joint Director of Education is the Chairman, strictly in accordance with Rule-14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. 10. So far as the respondent No. 7 is concerned, it would be equitable to direct that respondent No. 7 shall be paid salary for the period he has actually worked in Neena Thapa Inter College, Gorakhpur Cantt., Gorakhpur. Such payment may be affected by the. 10. So far as the respondent No. 7 is concerned, it would be equitable to direct that respondent No. 7 shall be paid salary for the period he has actually worked in Neena Thapa Inter College, Gorakhpur Cantt., Gorakhpur. Such payment may be affected by the. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur within six weeks on receipt of the order of this Court. The Manager of the institution shall submit the salary bill qua respondent No. 7 accordingly. 11. It is further provided that the claim of respondent No. 7 for appointment in any other institution against the vacancy whereof was subject matter of advertisement No. 1/03 and which is still vacant may be considered by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, preferably within four weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is filed before it by respondent No. 7 12. The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made herein above. —————