Dismissed

Ram Charan Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019SPLA/42/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal challenges the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition regarding regular appointment. The appellants admitted non-compliance with mandatory recruitment orders. The Court found no fault in the lower court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no regular appointment was granted to the appellants.

Ram Charan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 42 of 2008

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Charan Singh and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., D.S.M. Tripathi, R.K Srivastava, R.K. Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate, for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶7

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1952”) has arisen from judgment dated 11.12.2007 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with certain observations.

¶8

It is evident from record that substantive vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) arose due to superannuation of Ram Lakhan Singh and Ram Sahai Singh on 30.06.1991. The Management claimed that requisition was sent to District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as “DIOS”) and when no recommendation was received within two months from U.P. Secondary Educations Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “UPSESSB”), Management proceeded to make appointment under Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “1982 Act”) and issued letters of appointment to appellants on 24.01.1992. Learned Single Judge has found that vacancies being substantive, ad-hoc appointment could have been made only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Clause-2 and 5 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “First Order”), which read as under:

¶9

¶10

“ 2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made. -

¶11

The Management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the following cases, namely:

¶12

(a) in the case of substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise.

¶13

(b) in the case of leave vacancy, where the whole or unexpired portion of the leaves is for a period not exceeding two months on the date of such commencement.

¶14

(c) where a vacancy of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement.”

¶15

“5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. - (1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with Clauses (2) to (5).

¶16

(2) The management shall, as soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two news papers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh.

¶17

(3) Every application referred to in clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of School and shall be accompanied:

¶18

(a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable

¶19

¶20

to such Inspector;

¶21

(b) by a self-addressed envelop bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration.

¶22

(4) (a) The District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector.

¶23

(b) Where two or more candidates obtain equal quality points, the candidate obtaining higher percentage of marks in all examinations (High School, Intermediate, Graduate Degree and Post-Graduate Degree) essential for the particular grade, shall be placed higher and if such percentage is also equal, the candidate obtaining higher percentage of marks in the last essential examination of degree, as the case may be, shall be placed higher. In case percentage of marks in the last essential examination degree is also equal, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.

¶24

(5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and the names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institutions. This processes shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted.

¶25

Explanation. - In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women the expression "District Inspector of

¶26

¶27

Schools" shall mean the "Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.”

¶28

The said procedure, admittedly, was not followed. Hence, learned Single Judge has non suited the appellants.

¶29

Before this Court also, learned counsel for appellants could not dispute that procedure prescribed in First Order was not followed, which has been held mandatory by Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1996) 10 SCC 62, Shesh Mani Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools Deoria and others J.T. 2009 (10) SC 309 and by a Larger Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013 (Jahaj Pal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and another) and other connected matters decided on 21.02.2019.

¶30

In view thereof, we do not find any fault in the judgment of learned Single Judge and learned counsel for appellants also could not point out any manifest error in the judgment of learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference.

¶31

The appeal is dismissed.

¶32

Dt. 08.04.2019 PS

Ram Charan Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Singh Vs State

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Harish Tandon Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Pal Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools Allahabad and Others

State of U.P. and Others Vs Harendra Kumar and Others

Harendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others