Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 461 (ALL)

Indra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2022-03-30

RAJAN ROY

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. This is a bunch of writ petitions which were entertained by this Court as the Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016, Sanjay Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others and connected appeals were still pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In one of the matters bearing Writ Appeal No. 11788 of 2020 following order was passed on 28.07.2020: “Heard Shri Sharad Pathak along with Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for State and Shri R.K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2020 to contend that a Division Bench of this Court had quashed the judgment of Single Judge in Sanjay Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others with regard to entitlement of ad-hoc or officiating appointees to continue in service and receive salary, against which two special leave petitions were filed one bearing no. 8300 and the other bearing no. 5893 and that the petitioner is appellant no. 39 in civil appeal no. 5893 of 2017, wherein, the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2020 has been passed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is exploring the possibility of allowing the petitioner and similar situated teachers to undergo a process of selection but without competing with the open market candidates so that they are not thrown out from the service, although in the same vein, it has also been said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the petitioners cannot seek regularization. Therefore in this view of the matter as a candidate selected from commission has been sent for joining in place of the petitioner, this appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be frustrated, hence, he seeks a protection by means of this writ petition. On being confronted with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Shri R.K. Singh Suryawanshi could not deny that such an order is operating as of now. This court is conscious of the fact that ordinarily it does not interfere in such matters whether of ad-hoc or officiating teachers, but the reason this Court is interfering in this case is the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in the aforesaid civil appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as, otherwise, if the petitioner is ousted, then great prejudice would be caused to him. Issue notice to respondents no. 5 and 6 returnable at an early date. Connect and list along with Writ Petition No. 1992(SS) of 2003. Subject to further orders being passed in the aforesaid civil appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is provided that petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post on which he is working on the some terms on which he is working at present. However, if the candidate selected by the commission is to join on some other post then he can join or he can be adjusted elsewhere in some other college as per the discretion of the concerned authorities as per law. Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, rejoinder affidavit shall be filed within two weeks. List thereafter.” 2. Subsequently, the Civil Appeals, leading Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016, before Hon'ble the Supreme Court have been decided vide judgment dated 26.08.2020. The issues involved herein stand decided by the said decision and rights of the petitioners, if any, have to flow from the said decision and not otherwise. 3. It is also informed that in pursuance to the said judgment selections have also been held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2021 and 2 of 2021. If the petitioners have succeeded in the said selection then they will have a right accordingly in terms of the judgment in Sanjay Singh's case (supra). If they have not succeeded then they will have no such right. 4. At this stage Shri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel has informed that all the petitioners who were Ad-hoc teachers and who had participated in the selection after Sanjay Singh's case (supra), have failed in the exam. 5. Be that as it may, they have to reconcile to their fate and nothing more can be granted. 6. As regards writ petitions such as Writ Appeal No. 19567 of 2021 where the candidate selected by the Board in 2016 have sought their joining in the institutions which have been allotted to them, now that the controversy has been settled by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) and the selections in terms thereof are also over, therefore, the Board and the State Authorities are directed to ensure their joining as per law accordingly. 7. 7. As regards contention of Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for some of the unsuccessful Ad-hoc Teachers that the selected candidates have been sent of a different category vis-a-vis the category for which the post was reserved as per the requisition, this is not an aspect which is open for consideration at least at the behest of the unsuccessful teachers after the judgment in Sanjay Singh's case (supra), by this Court. 8. All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid. 9. The interim orders are accordingly discharged.