Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1090 (ALL)

Sunder Lal Dwivedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-04-22

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi dated 22.06.2015, refusing to regularize the services of the petitioner under Section 33F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982)[‘the Act of 1982’ for short]. There is a further prayer that this Court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus-directing the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun[‘DIOS’ for short] and the Committee of Management, Sanatandharm Inter College, Orai to pay the petitioner his monthly salary along with arrears since the month of December, 2009 until the date of his retirement. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Sanatandharm Inter College, District Jalaun[‘the Institution’ for short] is a duly recognized and aided intermediate college. The petitioner is a graduate and describes himself as trained in “Physical Science”. He applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade pursuant to an advertisement, the date and particulars whereof do not find mention. He was selected and appointed in the L.T. Grade as an adhoc teacher by the Management. It appears to be the petitioner's case that he was appointed to the post of an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Training Instructor) under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, to which, no regular appointment was made by the Selection Board, in accordance with Section 18 of the said Act, as it stood before its omission by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1993. The petitioner says that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Board, the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution dated 25.06.1992, deciding to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Training Instructor) till a regularly selected candidate is appointed by the Board. Pursuant to resolution appointing the petitioner, he joined duties on 01.07.1992. It is his case that he is functioning regularly eversince. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.03.2016. This writ petition was instituted on 06.07.2015. 3. It is the petitioner's further case that there is no controversy about existence of sanctioned post and no infirmity with the procedure relating to his appointment as an adhoc-teacher under Section 18 of the Act of 1982. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.03.2016. This writ petition was instituted on 06.07.2015. 3. It is the petitioner's further case that there is no controversy about existence of sanctioned post and no infirmity with the procedure relating to his appointment as an adhoc-teacher under Section 18 of the Act of 1982. He has functioned regularly since his appointment and received salary up to November, 2009, pursuant to an order of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28026 of 1992. How that happened is described like this : After the petitioner's selection and appointment by the Committee of Management of the Institution, all relevant papers required for grant of financial approval were submitted to the DIOS, but the DIOS passed an order dated 10.07.1992, illegally refusing to grant financial approval to the petitioner's appointment. The only reason assigned by the DIOS was that there was a ban against appointments. The order of the DIOS is on record, which, indeed, shows that in accordance with a circular of the Director of Education dated 31.08.1991, there was a stay on adhocappointments of teachers directly recruited. Apparently, for the said reason, the DIOS declined to approve the petitioner's appointment. 4. The petitioner then instituted Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28026 of 1992 before this Court, impugning the order of the DIOS on 10.01.1992. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, passed the following interim order on 12.08.1992 : Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 8/10.7.1992 passed by respondent no.1 shall remain stayed and the respondents are also directed to pay the salary of the petitioner whenever it is due to him. 5. Now, it is the petitioner's case that in compliance with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the petitioner was in receipt of regular salary and, of course, discharging duties, which he is still doing. The salary he received was up to the month of December, 2009, but not afterwards, because Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28026 of 1992 was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court, and the matter having become cognizable by the learned Single Judge by then, he dismissed the writ petition videorder dated 13.11.2009. The petitioner applied for a review of the order before the learned Single Judge, which came to be rejected by an order dated 14.05.2012. The petitioner applied for a review of the order before the learned Single Judge, which came to be rejected by an order dated 14.05.2012. After rejection of the application for review, the petitioner preferred a special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2009 as also the order declining to grant a review. The special appeal aforesaid, being Special Appeal No. 1143 of 2012, came on for hearing before a Division Bench, which disposed of the appeal in terms of the following material remarks and ordered on 04.07.2012 thus : ....... Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been working in the institution as Assistant Teacher (P.T.I.) and also receiving salary for the last more than 20 years. He has further submitted that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of regularization as provided under Section 33-F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as 1982 Act'). In our opinion, the claim of regularization under Section 33-F of the 1992 Act is to be considered by the Selection Committee duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the claim of the appellant for regularization at the first instance be considered by the aforesaid Selection Committee, which is chaired by the Joint Director, Secondary Education of the region. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by providing that the appellant may file a representation within six weeks before the respondent no.4 whereupon the respondent no.4 shall examine the same strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The decision taken on the representation may be communicated to the appellant. We make it clear that in case, the appellant is found not entitled to be regularized, then the salary received by her, would not be recovered. Till such time the representation is decided, the parties shall maintain status-quo. The appeal stands disposed of as above. 6. A certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1143 of 2012 was served upon the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi on 30.07.2012. Till such time the representation is decided, the parties shall maintain status-quo. The appeal stands disposed of as above. 6. A certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1143 of 2012 was served upon the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi on 30.07.2012. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the DIOS sent notices dated 05.11.2012 and 08.11.2012 to the petitioner and the Manager, fixing the date of hearing as 12.11.2012 at 11:30 am. before the Joint Director of Education. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that at the hearing before the Joint Director, the Manager submitted all true and correct facts relating to creation of the post, the process of selection and appointment of the petitioner by furnishing relevant documents along with an application dated 20.11.2012. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the said application as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. 7. Since no order was passed by the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi for a considerable length of time, the petitioner claims that he approached the Joint Director in person and submitted applications, but neither elicited any response. The petitioner acknowledges the fact that payment of his salary was stopped after dismissal of his writ petition and never paid to him after the month of December, 2009, despite orders of the Division Bench directing status quo to be maintained, pending a decision of the representation under Section 33F of the Act of 1982 by the Selection Committee constituted under the said statute. The petitioner’s case is that he continued to work regularly with the Institution, but there was a delay in decision in compliance with the Division Bench. Ultimately, an application for contempt, being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3496 of 2015 had to be instituted, wherein orders dated 27.05.2015 were passed, holding that the Joint Director of Education was bound to comply with the orders of this Court and in case he did not, within a period of two months of the receipt of the order passed by the Judge hearing the contempt matter, without any reasonable cause, the Court would have no option but to proceed in contempt against him. It was upon service of the said order by the petitioner through a memo dated 11.06.2015 that the Joint Director proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 22.06.2015, rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization. It was upon service of the said order by the petitioner through a memo dated 11.06.2015 that the Joint Director proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 22.06.2015, rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization. 8. A notice of motion was issued in this petition to all the respondents on 14.07.2015. Respondent No. 4 did not appear. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, to wit, the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and the DIOS. It is an affidavit dated 23.03.2018. A rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. When the matter came up on 31.10.2023, the parties having exchanged affidavits, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved. 9. Heard Mr. Suhail Ahmad Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been denied consideration of his case for regularization under Section 33F of the Act of 1982, because, at the time when the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Training Instructor) on an adhoc-basis against the substantive vacancy, the Management did not advertise the post (through publication) in newspapers, as required, nor followed the procedure prescribed. The finding goes on to say that the petitioner received his salary pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 12.08.1992 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28062 of 1992 till the said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, before whom it came up on 13.11.2009. The review petition too was rejected. It is then remarked that the Division Bench hearing the special appeal required the matter to be examined by the Joint Director of Education and decided on the petitioner's representation and till the said representation was decided, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The review petition too was rejected. It is then remarked that the Division Bench hearing the special appeal required the matter to be examined by the Joint Director of Education and decided on the petitioner's representation and till the said representation was decided, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is observed further that the petitioner's appointment, in any case, was contrary to the provisions of Section 33F of the Act of 1982, because Section 33F deals with appointments made by promotion or direct recruitment in the Lecturer's grade or in the trained graduate grade against a short-term vacancy in accordance with Para 2 of The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981[‘Second Removal of Difficulties Order’ for short] as amended from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy. It is also remarked that the appointment should have been made after 14th May, 1991 and not later than 6th August, 1993. What is emphasized is that the appointment should be against a short-term vacancy, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner's appointment was against a substantive vacancy. It was on all these grounds that the Joint Director of Education has rejected the petitioner's case for regularization under Section 33F of the Act of 1982. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order impugned is manifestly illegal, inasmuch as the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi was no one to pass the order impugned and he has done so in teeth of the directions of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1143 of 2012, decided on 04.07.2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission to this extent, because their Lordships of the Division Bench had remarked in one part of the order that the petitioner's claim for regularization, in the first instance, ought to have been considered by the Selection Committee, then chaired by the Joint Director of Education of the region. This clearly bears reference to the Regional Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of consideration of regularization claims under Section 33F of the Act of 1982. Here, the Joint Director has dealt with the claim himself and rejected it by means of the impugned order. He has not placed it before the Regional Selection Committee at all. This clearly bears reference to the Regional Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of consideration of regularization claims under Section 33F of the Act of 1982. Here, the Joint Director has dealt with the claim himself and rejected it by means of the impugned order. He has not placed it before the Regional Selection Committee at all. It appears that this confusion has arisen because after the remarks of the Division Bench in the earlier part of their Lordships' orders, it was said that the petitioner, described as appellant in the order of the Division Bench, may file a representation within six weeks before respondent No. 4, who shall examine the same strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order. 12. Now, the fourth respondent to the appeal was possibly the Joint Director of Education, and not the Regional Selection Committee, but that would not purge the impugned order of its illegality, which is, indeed, there, and further, a case is made out on merits to quash the order impugned. Technically, the impugned order may be in breach of the orders of the Division Bench, and therefore, without jurisdiction and illegal. But, it is a settled principle of the law that an order, which is otherwise lawful but passed in colour of exercise of a jurisdiction that the Authority does not possess, may still not be interfered with, if quashing of that order would be futile, in the sense that it would lead to no different result. Futile writs, it is true, ought not to be issued. Therefore, it must be examined if the impugned order is sound on law and facts or suffers from some infirmity, where the jurisdictional error may require it to be quashed and the matter remitted to the appropriate Authority. What this Court finds is that the crux of the matter is that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis and not as an ad hoc teacher against a short-term vacancy under Para 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. 13. The post of an L.T. Grade Teacher (Physical Training Instructor) was substantive, but required to be filled up, as the record shows, because no candidate selected by the Board, or the Commission, as it was then known, was available. 13. The post of an L.T. Grade Teacher (Physical Training Instructor) was substantive, but required to be filled up, as the record shows, because no candidate selected by the Board, or the Commission, as it was then known, was available. The procedure to fill up such a vacancy was one described by Section 18 of the Act of 1982, as it stood before its deletion by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1993 and also amendment by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1992 with effect from 14.07.1992. 14. Section 18 of the Act of 1982, as it originally stood and was in force at the time of the petitioner's appointment vide Resolution of the Committee of Management dated 25.06.1992, reads : 18. Ad hoc Teachers (1) Where the management has notified vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a shall also apply to the appoint teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression 'Board' for the expression "Commission". (3) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely– (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of section 11 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. 15. Section 18 was substituted by a provision for the one originally existing in the Statute, which reads as follows : 18. 15. Section 18 was substituted by a provision for the one originally existing in the Statute, which reads as follows : 18. Ad hoc Teachers.–(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher, on purely ad hoc basis in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. (2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster who is to be appointed by direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (9). (3) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the manner prescribed be appointed by promoting the senior most teacher possessing prescribed qualifications– (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in lecturer's grade; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as a teacher in the trained graduate's grade, in the case of vacancy in trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of making appointments under sub sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories of persons in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the State Government in this behalf. If in determining the vacancies it is found that persons belonging to such categories are not holding such number of posts as should have been held by them in accordance with such rules or orders, then the vacancies shall be so determined that first and every alternate vacancy shall be reserved for the persons of such categories until the required percentage of posts is held by them. (7) After determining the number of vacancies as provided in sub-section (6) the Management shall within fifteen days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. If the Management fails to intimate such vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, that District Inspector of Schools may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under sub-section (7), invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder, for ad hoc appoint- ment to the post of teachers, other than Principal or Head masters in such manner as may be prescribed. (9) (a) For each district, there shall be a Selection Committee for selection of candiates for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising- (i) District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari; (iii) District Inspectress of Girls Schools, and where there it no such Inspectress, the Principal of the Government Girls Intermediate College and where there are more than one such college, the seniormost Principal of such Colleges and where there is no such College, the Principal of the Government Girls Intermediate College as nominated by the State Government. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (6) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the institutions and recommend their names to the Management for appointment under sub-section (2). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the institutions shall be such as may be prescribed. (10) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post. (11) The provisions of sections 21-D shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section." 16. (10) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post. (11) The provisions of sections 21-D shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section." 16. The requirement for selection by a Selection Committee was introduced for the first time by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1992 with effect from 14.01.1992, which is a procedure envisaged under the amended statute, after the petitioner had already been appointed in terms of the resolution dated 25.06.1992. The remarks, therefore, in the impugned order that the necessary procedure was not adopted, may not be very accurate. The requirement to advertise in newspapers also was not there in appointment made under Section 18 in the terms it was cast at the time when the petitioner was appointed. 17. The other issue, however, which is equally important is whether the petitioner's case could be considered for regularization under Section 33F of the Act of 1982. Admittedly, it could not be done, because, though the petitioner was appointed during the relevant period of time, that is to say, between 14th May, 1991 and 6th August, 1993, he was not appointed against a short-term vacancy, but a substantive one. A fortiori, the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with Para 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. He was appointed in accordance with Section 18 of the Act of 1982. Section 33F may not be attracted to the petitioner's case, as rightly opined by the Joint Director of Education. Nevertheless, it appears that the provisions of Section 33C of the Act of 1982, have not been considered at all by the Joint Director. The provisions of Section 33C, which have been introduced by amendment vide Uttar Pradesh Act No. 25 of 1998 in Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 read : [Section 33-C and 33-D ins. Nevertheless, it appears that the provisions of Section 33C of the Act of 1982, have not been considered at all by the Joint Director. The provisions of Section 33C, which have been introduced by amendment vide Uttar Pradesh Act No. 25 of 1998 in Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 read : [Section 33-C and 33-D ins. by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 25 of 1998 (w.e.f. 20-4-1998).][33-C. Regularisation of certain more appointments.-(1) Any teacher who,- (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14,1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade; (ii) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Headmaster in accordance with Section 18; (b) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2); shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a)For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising,- (i) Regional Joint Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) who shall be member; (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) who shall be member; In addition to above members the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be co opted as member while considering the cases for regularisation of that district. (b) The procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub-section (2) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (4) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Ordinance referred to in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act. 18. Section 33C envisages an appointment by promotion or direct recruitment on or after 14th May, 1991, but not later than 6th August, 1993 on adhoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18 of the Act of 1982, either in the Lecturer's Grade or the L.T. Grade. The petitioner's case seems to be covered by the aforesaid provision, and not Section 33F. Section 33C envisages consideration of such a case by the Selection Committee constituted under sub-Section (2) of Section 33C. It was, perhaps, bearing the aforesaid provision in mind that their Lordships of the Division Bench, by their judgment and order dated 04.07.2012 passed in Special Appeal No. 1143 of 2012, directed consideration of the petitioner's case for regularization by the Selection Committee constituted under the provision of Section 33F of the Act of 1982. The reference to Section 33F is to be blamed upon the petitioner for a mis-description of the provision, which appears to have made its way to the directions of the Division Bench, and thereafter, in the consideration of the matter by the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. In substance, the consideration had to be one under Section 33C, and not Section 33F, as it appears. In substance, the consideration had to be one under Section 33C, and not Section 33F, as it appears. In any case, it was for all these reasons that the Division Bench directed the petitioner's case for regularization to be considered by the Regional Selection Committee constituted under Section 33C of the Act of 1982, and not by the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. 19. In the above conspectus of facts, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is not one which may fall in that category that even if quashed, no different result may ensue. There is possibility of a different conclusion upon a correct application of the provisions of Section 18, under which, the petitioner appears to have been selected on adhocbasis, as the provision stood at the relevant time, by the Regional Selection Committee, in terms of the directions of the Division Bench. The very meticulous submissions on behalf of the State by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that no difference would result if the matter is placed before the Regional Selection Committee, can, therefore, not be accepted. 20. In the result, this petition succeeds and stands allowed in part. The impugned order dated 22.06.2015 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi to lay the matter before the Regional Selection Committee constituted under Section 33C of the Act of 1982, and the said Committee are ordered to consider the petitioner's case and decide the same within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Joint Director of Education. Within this period of time, the Committee shall ensure due opportunity to the petitioner and the Management to place before them any papers that the said parties may desire to rely on regarding the petitioner's claim for regularization or in opposition to it, as the case may be . 21. There shall be no order as to costs.