In a writ petition challenging the appointment of a private respondent as an Assistant Teacher, the court held that prior regularization of the petitioner does not vitiate the appointment in the absence of inherent error or surplusage claim by the petitioner. The petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19755 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Satendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondent.
It transpires, present petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 55677 of 2008 to question the appointment of private respondent no. 5 (herein). The writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon Director of Education to decide the complaint of the petitioner. Vide his order dated 24.09.2012, the Director, Secondary Education found, the petitioner's services had been regularized on 10.02.2006 while working as an Assistant Teacher at Acharya J.B. Kriplani Inter College Jamalpur Balia. Thereafter, he required the DIOS to ascertain the correct 'Janshakti' of Assistant Teacher at the above described educational institution and pass appropriate order with respect to respondent no. 5.
It is own case of the petitioner that according to the 'Janshakti' determination as notified under Office Memorandum dated 01.02.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary, there exist 11 posts of Assistant Teachers at the above described institution.
Therefore, it is not the case of the petitioner that there exists no post of Assistant Teacher in the educational institution in question. It also has not been denied that the petitioner's services were regularized earlier on 12.06.2006 much before the publication of Office Memorandum dated 01.02.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary.
In absence of any challenge to the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Director, Secondary Education and in face of prior regularization of the petitioner, no inherent or fundamental error appears to be existed in appointment of respondent no.5. Whether the petitioner is one of the eleven senior-most Assistant Teacher at the educational institution in question or he is one outside that zone, may not have any effect of invalidating of appointment of private respondent no.5. If he is surplus, the only effect it may cause is to adjust the said respondent at
another institution.
However, that is not complaint brought by the petitioner. In view of the above, no direction is required in that regard nor it is being made open to the State authorities to examine that issue.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022 SP
Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's prior regularization and lack of challenge to the regularization order invalidate the appointment of the private respondent.
Vinod Kumar Yadav
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
