Onkar Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024WRIA/3088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher challenged rejection by a Regional Level Committee of his service regularisation on the ground that no requisition was sent to the Secondary Education Selection Board. The court found the matter required consideration, impleaded the Board, sought pleadings, stayed the impugned order and allowed salary from the State Exchequer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.02.2024 stayed until further orders; petitioner entitled to continued payment of salary from the State Exchequer.

Onkar Nath Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3088 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Shukla

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri R.K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 7.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director.

¶8

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, sought the financial concurrence and once the same was not granted, he approached this Court by filing writ petition, wherein an interim order was passed directing the respondent to make payment of salary. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioner is getting salary since 15th January 1993 uptill the impugned order dated 6th January 2024 is passed.

¶9

Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has worked to the full satisfaction of his superiors for more than 33 years and has satisfactory imparted education to the students of the Institution and at the fag end of his retirement, in a very cursory manner, the order impugned 6th February 2024 has been passed by the Committee headed by the Joint Director. He argued that the order impugned is itself enough to show that the District Inspector of Schools has not submitted any report on his own, though, the report which has been submitted by the DIOS is based on the report given by the Committee of Management. He further submits that as three decades have passed and several Manager of Committee of Management has taken over the charge and therefore, it is impossible for the Committee of Management to furnish all the documents of appointment of the petitioner, while securing the same.

¶10

Further contention is that prior to passing the order impugned, the committee has failed to ascertain any report from the opposite party no. 8, i.e., Secondary Education Selection Board

¶11

and came to the conclusion straightaway that since there is violation of the provision of the Section 18 of the old Act 1982, the claim of the regularization of the services of the petitioner, has been rejected. He next added that in fact, the order is passed without application of mind and further, it does not contain that what effort is made by the Committee to come out the conclusion that the requisition was not sent by the Committee of Management to the Board concerned.

¶12

In support of his contention, he has drawn attention towards annexure no. 2, page 32 and submitted that in the year 1990, the post was advertised, which clearly shows that the post has been advertised prior to the appointment of the petitioner and certainly the then Committee of Management would have sent the requisition to the Board, through the DIOS concerned. Therefore, submission is that the impugned order dated 6th February 2024 is liable to quashed.

¶13

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 7 has pointed out, on the basis of instruction that no requisition has ever been received by the Board.

¶14

In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that the provision says that the requisition would be send by committee of management but whether it is received in the office of Board or not, the same can not be gone into at this stage.

¶15

Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has defended the order dated 6th February 2024, and submitted that since, there was a provision under unamended Section 18 of Board Act 1982 with respect to the procedure prescribed for appointment of ad-hoc teachers and submitted that then, there was a provision that in case of a vacancy, the Committee of Management could have appointed such teachers, after sending a requisition to the Board and in the present matter, there is an application of mind on this issue by the Committee concerned, that no requisition is sent to the Board and therefore, on this ground alone, the regularisation of the petitioner has been turned down.Thus, submission is that there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Prima facie, there seems to be force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, thus, matter requires consideration.

¶17

Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 8, returnable at an early date.

¶18

Steps be taken within a week.

¶19

Counter affidavit maybe filed by the opposite parties within a period of three weeks.

¶20

A weeks' time thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

List thereafter.

¶22

Until further orders, the impugned order dated 6th February 2024 shall remain stayed.

¶23

It is further provided that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary, if he was being paid salary up till the date of the order dated 6th February 2024, from the State Exchequer.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Onkar Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Shankar Kanth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence and Ors.

Harish Chandra (Pno No. 910620015) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Tushar Krishna Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Sarvesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Lakhan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Others