Allowed

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022WRIA/15707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since an earlier order allowed petitioners to continue in service with consequential benefits and was never challenged, the initial appointment was validated. The Court set aside orders refusing regularization and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders refusing regularization set aside and the matter remitted to the Joint Director of Education for fresh regularization.

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Another Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

Reserved

Court No.37

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15707 of 2021

¶5

Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.

¶7

In an institution known by the name of Sri Jawahar Inter College, Gohan, District Jalaun, the petitioner no.1-Laxmi Kant Sharma was appointed on a short-term vacancy on 14.5.1987 and the petitioner no.2 similarly was appointed on 1.9.1987. Their approvals were granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 3.6.1987 and 14.10.1987 respectively. However, when their approvals were withdrawn on 8.8.1988, they filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.16226 of 1988. This writ petition came to be allowed on 4.11.2003. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners were getting their salaries on account of the interim order which was granted on 25.8.1988. When the writ petition was allowed on 4.11.2003, the following order was passed :-

¶8

"Heard counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in Jawahar Inter College, Gohan district Jalaun. Their appointments were approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun on 14.10.1987 and 13.6.1987 respectively. By the impugned order dated 8.8.1988, the approval was cancelled on the ground that the college has sent false, incorrect and misleading information. The impugned order was stayed by this Court on 25.8.1988 making it open to the District Inspector of

¶10

¶11

Schools to pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioners.

¶12

There are no details given with regard to the allegations which were termed as false, incorrect or misleading information. The Standing Counsel has not cared to bring on record the result of the inquiry which was said to be pending. The pendency of an inquiry could not be a ground to terminate petitioners' services. The respondents did not give any opportunity either to the institution or to the petitioners to defend their appointment. The order, therefore, is grossly violative of natural justice. It is also arbitrary inasmuch as it does not give any reason to cancel the approval. The reasons disclosed are wholly vague and lack any details or material particulars.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.1988 is set aside. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits."

¶14

The petitioners thereafter continued to teach by the order of the District inspector of Schools dated 8.9.2004. The CT Grade posts were merged into LT Grade posts with effect from 17.11.1992. The petitioners were also thereafter granted their selection grade on 16.5.2005. However, since the petitioners were not regularized, they approached the Joint Director of Education who on 29.6.2017 refused their regularization. This forced the petitioners to file a writ petition being Writ-A No.35514 of 2017. This writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 10.2.2021 and the matter was remitted back to the Joint Director of Education to revisit his order dated 29.6.2017 in view of the law as had been elaborated in the order dated 10.2.2021. The petitioners thereafter represented before the Joint Director of Education who constituted a Committee to adjudicate the case of

¶15

¶16

the petitioners. On 7.7.2021 the Committee did not find the petitioners' case fit for regularization and refused the same. This order was reiterated by the District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 27.8.2021. Aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the High Court by its order dated 4.11.2003 had found that the petitioners' appointment was in order and that order was never challenged then it shall be deemed that the petitioners' initial appointments were done properly and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the respondents chose to go behind the order, then their action could be classified as contemptuous. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that if the petitioners' appointment was taken to be a regular appointment which was held by the High Court by its order dated 4.11.2003, then no further adjudication was required and the petitioners' services ought to have been regularized in view of section 33-B(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this having not being done, the order dated 7.7.2021 passed by the Committee constituted by the Joint Director of Education and the order dated 27.8.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools deserve to be set aside and further a mandamus need to be issued that the petitioners' services be regularized.

¶18

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submitted that when the matter had to be adjudicated then it was open for the Joint Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools to look into the status of initial vacancy and also to see that whether the appointments of the petitioners were made as per the Rules.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and after having perused the written submissions which they have filed, I am of the view that when the High Court had found by its order dated 4.11.2003 that the petitioners were to be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits and when that order was never challenged then it shall be deemed that the petitioners' initial appointment was in order. No authority could now have the jurisdiction to go behind the High Court's order.

¶21

Under such circumstances, the order dated 7.7.2021 passed by the Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education and the order dated 27.8.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Director of Education to consider the regularization of the petitioners afresh.

¶22

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 10.03.2022 GS

¶23

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by GAUTAM SONI Date: 2022.03.14 19:00:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Keshav Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Hriday Narayan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anarma Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vandana Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others