Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 443 (ALL)

MAHESH PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-06

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is Assistant Teacher. He is aggrieved by the order dated 1.6.1995 passed by Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary), respondent No. 3 whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Jirauli Heera Singh, Aligarh is a recognized institution. The education is imparted upto the level of High School. It receives aid from the State fund. The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the institution. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed in the institution as Assistant Teacher in 2/3rd of L.T. Grade on 1.9.1970. The District Inspector of Schools has accorded his approval on 17.12.1971. A copy of the approval letter, passed by the District Inspector of Schools is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner had applied leave without pay for doing his Ph.D and B.Ed., which was granted to him and after completion of his Ph.D & B.Ed, he again joined the institution. 4. The District Inspector of Schools in response to D.O. letter dated 14.2.1978 from the office of Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary), in his communication dated 21.2.1980 has stated that the petitioner and one Rejendra Kumar Singh were appointed as Assistant Teacher in accordance with the rules then enforced and as such, they were entitled for regularization. 5. It appears that the on aforesaid communication of District Inspector of Schools, no action was taken by Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary). The petitioner made representation to the various Authorities for his regularization in terms of Secondary Education Removal of Difficulty Order, 1976. When petitioner’s request for regularization was not exceeded, he preferred Writ Petition No. 15422 of 1981 before this Court. This writ petition was disposed of on 28.8.1991 with a direction upon the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity to the petitioner and Committee of Management. 6. In compliance thereof, the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) passed the impugned order whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment is on temporary basis as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. 6. In compliance thereof, the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) passed the impugned order whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment is on temporary basis as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents and the stand taken in the impugned order has been reiterated in the counter-affidavit. 7. I have heard Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed after following the procedure in which they are entitled at that point of time and his appointment was duly accorded approval by the District Inspector of Schools. He further urged that from the date of his initial appointment, he is uninterruptedly working in the institution except of some leave which was duly sanctioned to him to complete his educational qualification. He further submits that once, this Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was continuously discharging his duties and is entitled for regularization in terms of Removal of difficulty Order dated 27.11.1976, there is no jurisdiction not to regularize the petitioner by Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) without complying the direction issued by this Court. 8. Learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed merely on temporary basis and as such, the Committee of Management was not justified to grant any leave and after the leave was completed, he should not have been allowed to re-join without permission of District Inspector of Schools. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their respective submissions and perused the record. Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the year 1970 and his appointment was accorded approval by the Competent Authority. However, the dispute is only with regard to his entitlement for regularization in terms of the provisions of Difficulty of Removal Order, 1976. This Court in its judgement dated 28.8.1991 had categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner was working uninterruptedly and he was on duly sanctioned leave by the Committee of Management. However, the dispute is only with regard to his entitlement for regularization in terms of the provisions of Difficulty of Removal Order, 1976. This Court in its judgement dated 28.8.1991 had categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner was working uninterruptedly and he was on duly sanctioned leave by the Committee of Management. This Court has further taken note of the fact that the District Inspector of Schools in his communication dated 21.2.1980 to the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) mentioned that the petitioner was entitled for regularization as his initial appointment was in terms of the Rules which was came into existence at that point of time. 10. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) has not complied the directions of this Court passed in its earlier judgement. The Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) has also not taken note of communication of District Inspector of Schools wherein it was clearly mentioned that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in terms of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid facts, the finding of Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis is not sustainable. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the order of Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) is bereft of any reason and erroneous, he has not complied the order of this Court and has not considered the various finding recorded by this Court. He has also not considered the provisions of Removal of Difficulty Order dated 27.11.1976. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) dated 1.6.1995 is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Education-II, (Secondary) to pass a fresh order in the light of directions and observation made by this Court in its earlier judgement dated 28.8.1991, which is extracted herein below: “It may be observed that the petitioner has been working in the institution continuously after completion of B.Ed in 1978 and his appointment earlier in two third of L.T. Grade was approved by the District Inspector of Schools as noticed herein before. The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Education Directorate, U.P. Allahabad shall consider all these facts and issue an appropriate order for regularization of the petitioner and if necessary, for creation of the post for that purpose as also for the payment of his salary and other emoluments, if he has actually worked in the institution all the time as alleged by him. This order shall be passed by the Deputy Director of Schools within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.” The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ——————