Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3703 (ALL)

SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-12-10

A.P.SAHI

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed which raises a dispute that has been engaging the attention of this Court for a fairly long time. It relates to ad hoc appointments in Intermediate Colleges governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder, which have been banned after 14th July, 1992 and the Management of the Institution has been prohibited from making appointments. The manner in which such appointments could be made were reviewed from time to time and finally under the Government Order dated 25.01.1999, the removal of difficulties order which was in existence was rescinded. 3. In the opinion of the Court after the aforesaid Government Order there was no provision left under which ad hoc appointments could be made and a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rakesh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004(3) UPLBEC 2671 came up with a pronouncement that the Management still continues to be authorized to make appointments against short term vacancies after 25th January, 1999. 4. This pronouncement was made keeping in view the need of the institutions and also in view of the fact that there was no such prohibition on the Management to proceed to make appointments against short term vacancies. The reasoning of the aforesaid judgment was differed with and the matter was referred to a larger Bench by this Court. 5. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Gupta v. District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad and others reported in 2005 (2) ESC 851 was also of the same opinion but the said judgment has been reversed by a Division Bench in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (1) ESC 118 para 25. 6. In this view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid opinion already expressed, the petitioner cannot be granted relief. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ————