C/M Kisan Inter College Manager vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

regularized on the post of Lecturer (Civics) w.e.f.

07.10.1983. The District Inspector of Schools (for short

“the DIOS”) by an order dated 16.06.2009 directed the

payment of arrears of salary to the 5 th Respondent from

01.01.1985. As the Appellant objected to the payment of

salary to Respondent No.5, an enquiry was conducted in

which it was found that Respondent No.5 had been working

continuously as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher from

01.01.1985 and the Order dated 16.06.2009 of the DIOS,

Basti was found to have been properly issued.

4. Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 filed by Shri Hari

Prasad Pathak and Respondent No.5 challenging the

advertisement dated 19.06.1995 for filling up the post of

Lecturer (Civil) was disposed of by the High Court by a

judgment dated 31.03.2010. The High Court took notice of

the fact of regularization of the services of Shri Hari Prasad

Pathak as Lecturer (Civics) w.e.f. 07.10.1983. Respondent

4 | Page No.5 was permitted to file a representation for

regularization of his service as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher.

The High Court permitted Respondent No.5 to continue in

service till a decision is taken on his request for

regularization. The request made by Respondent No.5 for

regularization was accepted by the Regional Level

Committee, Basti. By an order dated 31.07.2010, the

Regional Level Committee held that Respondent No.5 was

appointed on 01.01.1985 as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher

and he continued to work in the said capacity since then.

The regularization of the services of Respondent No.5 was

challenged by the Appellant in Writ Petition No.50312 of

2010. The judgment of the High Court dated 31.03.2010 in

Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 directing the consideration

of regularization was challenged by the Appellant by filing

Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad

High Court.

5. In the meanwhile, the Appellant initially suspended

Respondent No.5 on 28.08.2010 and later terminated his

services on some allegations. The said order of

termination was disapproved by the Selection Board which

5 | Page directed re-instatement of Respondent No.5 in

service by an Order dated 16.02.2013. As the Appellant

was not complying with the direction of the Selection

Board, Respondent No.5 filed a Writ Petition No.24051 of

2013 seeking direction to the Appellant to take him back.

6. The learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court

heard all the Writ Petitions together. Writ Petition No.50312

of 2010 filed by the Appellant assailing the regularization

order in favour of Respondent No.5 was allowed. Writ

Petition No.24051 of 2013 filed by Respondent No.5

seeking a direction to permit him to join was dismissed

along with Writ Petition Nos. 18046 of 1985, 2775 of 1989

and 22891 of 1989 filed by Respondent No.5.

7. Respondent No.5 filed four Special Appeals against the

judgment of the learned single Judge. Special Appeal

No.1297 of 2013 was filed against the judgment in Writ

Petition No.24051 of 2013 pertaining to the permission

granted to Respondent No.5 to resume his duties in

compliance of the Order passed by the Selection Board.

Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 filed by Respondent No.5

6 | Page related to the claim of continuity of service and payment of

salary. Special Appeal No.1289 of 2013 was filed against

the dismissal of the said Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985.

Another connected Writ Petition No.22891 of 1989 relating

to the payment of salary and arrears was the subject

matter of challenge in Special Appeal 1299 of 2013.

Special Appeal No.1300 of 2013 was filed against the

judgment in Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010 in which the

regularization of Respondent No.5 was challenged by the

Appellant. The Special Appeals filed by Respondent No.5

were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Review Applications filed by the Appellant were dismissed.

Therefore, these appeals.

8. An interim order was passed by this Court on

09.03.2018 staying the impugned judgment of the High

Court due to which Respondent No.5 was not paid his

salary. During the pendency of these Appeals, Respondent

No.5 attained the age of superannuation in March 2019.

9. The crucial point to be considered is whether

Respondent No.5 worked between 1984 to 1995 for being

7 | Page eligible to be considered for regularization. The Appellant

contended that Respondent No.5 did not discharge his

duties as L.T. Grade Teacher during that period. A detailed

enquiry that was conducted by the DIOS, Basti was in

favour of Respondent No.5 in which it was found that he

worked continuously from 01.01.1985. The services of

Respondent No.5 were regularized on the basis of the said

enquiry report. There is no reason to differ with the

findings of the High Court that the 5 th respondent was

eligible for regularization as per the provisions of Uttar

Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act,

1982. The Appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the

claim of Respondent No.5 that he had actually served in

the School during the disputed period i.e. between 1984

and 1995.

10. Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was regularized in the post of

Lecturer (Civics) on 28.11.2008 w.e.f. 07.10.1983. There is

no dispute about the existence of a regular vacancy in the

post of L.T. Grade Teacher thereafter. The order of

regularization of the service of Respondent No.5 was

wrongly set aside by the learned single Judge without

8 | Page taking into account the impact of the Order dated

31.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.196191 of 1995. In the said

Order, the High Court held that the claim for regularization

of Respondent No.5 has to be considered by the Regional

Level Committee. The order of regularization was passed

after taking into account all relevant material. By taking

note of the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated

06.05.2009, the Division Bench directed continuation of

Respondent No.5 in service with all consequential benefits.

In view of the conflicting claim relating to service rendered

by Respondent No.5 between 1985 and 1995, the stand of

the Government assumes importance. The counter

affidavit filed by the Government indicates that there were

endorsements made by the Appellant itself by letters dated

29.07.1988 and 17.04.2009 that Respondent No.5 had

continued in the service since 1985. That apart, the clear

stand of the Government is in favour of Respondent No.5.

The relief granted to Respondent No.5 is dependent upon

the service rendered by him for a period of 10 years

between 1985 to 1995 to enable him to claim

regularization according to Uttar Pradesh Secondary

9 | Page Education Services Commission Act, 1982. In view of the

enquiry report dated 06.05.2009 and the endorsement of

the Management in their letters dated 29.07.1988 and

17.04.2009, it is clear that Respondent No.5 had actually

worked during 1985 to 1995 and he was eligible for being

considered for regularization of his service as LT Grade

Teacher. The order of regularization dated 31.07.2010 was

rightly upheld by the Division Bench.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, we see no error

committed by the High Court. The Appeal(s) are

accordingly dismissed.

..

…................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..

…….............................J. [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, October 04, 2019.

10 | P a g e