Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/5053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privileged writer petition challenges rejection of regularization claim under the UP Secondary Education Act, 1982. The court relieves the challenge as the impugned order was erroneous and quashed pursuant to a prior Judgment in a series of similar writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2024 and rematter back to the Regional Level Committee to pass afresh order within three months adhering to the Scheme of Section 33-G

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54957

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5053 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsha Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 4. No-one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.5.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.01.2024 whereby claim of petitioner for regularization under Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education [Services Selection Boards] Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982) has been rejected. A further prayer for permission to work and discharge duties and for payment of regular salary along with consequential emoluments has also been sought.

¶9

It has been submitted that in the order impugned, date of appointment of petitioner has been wrongly indicated as 13.10.2001 whereas petitioner was appointed on 13.10.2000 and was coming within the cut off date of 30.12.2000. In view thereof, petitioner has sought benefit of the order passed by this Court in WRIT - A No. - 8437 of 2023.

¶10

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit filed admits that petitioner's date of initial appointment is in fact 13.10.2000 as has been indicated in paragraph 6 of counter affidavit and not 13.10.2001 as mentioned in the order impugned.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on

¶12

judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in a bunch of petitions with leading petition being WRIT - A No. - 8437 of 2023, Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others to submit that a similar issue has already been adjudicated upon through aforesaid judgment whereunder the orders of rejection were quashed and the dispute was relegated back to Regional Level Committee to pass orders afresh after calling the records from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspectors of Schools concerned.

¶13

The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:-

¶14

"30. In view of the above said submissions and discussions, it is apparent that the orders impugned in all the writ petitions have been passed in a cyclostyle manner, without associating the petitioners in the proceeding and without ensuring the records from the Committee of Management/District Inspector of Schools concern and further without following with any procedure, as it is provided under Section 33-C(2)(b) of the Act, 1982. Thus, the impugned orders on its face, are unlawful and against the settled proposition of law.

¶15

31. Consequently, the orders of rejection, assailed in the present bunch of writ petitions are hereby quashed.

¶16

32. The writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.

¶17

33. All the matters are relegated back to the Regional Level Committees concerned to pass order afresh within a period of three months, after calling the records from the committee of management as well as the District Inspectors of Schools concern and by verifying the same. It is further directed that the petitioners shall also be provided the opportunity of hearing, if so required. The scheme provided under Section 33-G of the Act, 1982 shall strictly be adhered to, keeping in view of the requirement of procedure to be adopted by the Committee so constituted.

¶18

34. In addition, it is further provided that the petitioners of the present bunch of writ petitions are entitled to continue in service and shall be paid salary without any further break, till the decision so taken by the committee concerned. The petitioners as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management shall ensure their presence and would cooperate with the Regional Level Committee, as and when required."

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State admits that the present dispute is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment. However he also stands by the objections raised by him as noted in aforesaid judgment and order.

¶20

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, it transpires that this Court has recorded a finding that the claim of petitioners to be appointed either under Uttar

¶21

Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) order, 1981 or the unamended Section 18 of the Act of 1982 was required to be examined thoroughly by the Regional Level Committee while ensuring production of records from the Committee of Management as well as District Inspector of Schools, which were not provided to the Regional Level Committee. It is also observed that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order and the provisions of Section 33-C(2)(b) of the Act of 1982 have also been not considered.

¶22

A perusal of impugned order makes it evident that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 27.01.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing opposite party no.2 i.e. Chairman, Regional Level Committee to adhere to directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 in the case of petitioner as well.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 kvg/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 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

Pinky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sajivan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas, Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Devlpt. Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Rajendra Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication New Delhi and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others