Allowed

Vachaspati Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/1654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed orders terminating the petitioner's services as an ad-hoc teacher, remitting the matter to the Regional Level Committee for fresh decision after collecting missing records. The petitioner was directed to continue service and pay salary pending final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to Regional Level Committee for fresh decision within three months; petitioner entitled to continue in service and salary pending final decision.

Vachaspati Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40079

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1654 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vachaspati Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the prayer clause (i), as he does not want to press the aforesaid prayer clause at this stage.

¶7

The prayer is allowed.

¶8

Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 12.10.2023 passed and issued by the opposite party no. 3, as well as, the order dated 10.11.2023 wherein direction was issued by the opposite party no. 2 to all the Committee of Management's of the colleges in district Pratapgarh to terminate services of the ad-hoc teachers including the petitioner, and the orders are appended as Annexure No. 2 & 3 respectively, along with the writ petition.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. grade by the Committee of Management and in case of nongrant of financial concurrence by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 487 (S/S) of 1998 wherein the order was passed on 06.11.1998 for payment of salary and since then, he was getting salary but later on, the same was stopped, vide order dated 09.11.2023 and subsequently the Regional Level Committee, considered regularization of the services of the petitioner and rejected the same, vide the impugned order dated 12.10.2023.

¶11

He further contended that since the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner, therefore, naturally the records with respect to the appointment would be in the custody of the Committee of Management or with the office of the District

¶12

Inspector of Schools but without calling for any report from the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools, the Regional Level Committee has passed the order impugned dated 12.10.2023. He has also added that the District Inspector of Schools is one of the members of the Regional Level Committee but no report has been called from the District Inspector of Schools as is apparent from the order impugned itself.

¶13

In support of his contention, he has submitted that ditto identical matter in Writ-A No. 8517 of 2023, Tirthraj Vs. State of U.P. along with other connected matters has been decided by this Court, vide Judgment and order dated 17.5.2024 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit. He has also informed this Court that the petitioner has also assailed the provision of Section 33-G (8) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 in Writ-A No. 9687 of 2023, which is pending consideration.

¶14

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the contention on some factual aspects but he could not rebut the fact that the matter is identical to those petitioners in favour of whom Judgment and order was passed on 17.05.2024 in Writ-A No. 8517 of 2023, Tirthraj Vs. State of U.P. along with the connected matters.

¶15

Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires from the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 that the report from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools has not been called for by the Regional Level Committee, thus, prima facie, the decision of the Regional Level Committee seems to be taken in hasty manner. This Court has also noticed the fact that in the case of identically situated teachers, this Court has passed the order dated 17.05.2024 and matter is relegated to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter afresh.

¶16

Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed and issued by the opposite party no. 3, as well as the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 are hereby quashed.

¶17

The matter is remitted back to the Regional Level Committee to pass order afresh within a period of three months after calling the records from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools and subsequently verifying those records and consulting the Committee of Management, and while affording opportunity of hearing to the teachers

¶18

concerned, if so required. It is further provided that the scheme provided under Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 shall also be strictly adhered to.

¶19

In addition, it is further provided that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service and shall be paid salary without any further break subject to the final decision taken by the Regional Level Committee. It is also directed that the petitioner as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management shall ensure their presence and co-operate with the Regional Level Committee as and when required.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vachaspati Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vachaspati Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohini Misra Vs State of U.P.Thr.Secy.Mahdyymik Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko. and Ors.

Pyare Lal Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Director Local Bodies Lko. and Ors.

Dr. Sahnaz Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.Thr.Its Prin.Secy.Higher Education Deptt.and Ors.

Dal Singar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Nagendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 6 Others