Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM VEER SINGH versus D.I.O.S. AND OTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Veer Singh v. D.I.O.S. And Other - WRIT - A No. 19747 of 1989 [2006] RD-AH 9632 (16 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 9

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 19747 OF 1989

Ram Veer Singh and another - Petitioners

versus

District Inspector of Schools

and others - Respondents

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.S. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. Cause shown is sufficient. The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2003 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number and has been heard today.

3. The D.A.V. Inter College, Jansath District Muzaffarnagar is a recognised and aided Intermediate College. One Shri Sukhveer Singh C.T. Grade teacher went on leave. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed on short term vacancy. The  appointment  was approved by the District Inspector of Schools only from 1.2.1989 to 30.4.1989. He was not appointed on adhoc basis after following the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order 1981. The petitioner no. 1 continued to teach even after the  vacancy became substantive vacancy as Shri

2

Sukhveer Dev did not return back from leave.

4. Another  short term vacancy arose in the College on the promotion of Shri Madan Pal  which  was filled up by appointment of petitioner No. 2 by the Committee of Management on 31.1.1989.

5. There is no averment in the writ petition that any selection procedure was followed in making these appointments. The vacancies were not  advertised nor the  appointments were made  by a selection committee after giving quality point marks .

6. In this writ petition  an interim order was passed on 21.11.1990 allowing the petitioners to continue so long as the vacancies exist and to pay  to the petitioners the salary regularly.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to regularization under Section 33 A (1-B) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act 1982, as they were appointed between 12th June 1985 and 13th May 1989 on adhoc basis against substantive vacancy. The petitioners  have also relied upon an order passed by this Court on 13.1.2006 in Writ Petition No. 2219 of 2006 to decide petitioner's representation and have averred in supplementary affidavit that many such appointees have been regularized.

3

8. Shri M.S. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on short term vacancy and petitioner no. 2 was appointed on substantive vacancy without following the procedure  provided under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second)  Order 1981. In Abhai Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. And others 2005 2 UPLBEC 1516, this Court has held that in case of promotion, the post may be filled up by a person in the next lower grade, and  in other case selection be made after notifying the District Inspector of Schools and after advertisement on the basis of quality point marks.

9. In the present case, the petitioners were not appointed on adhoc basis. They were just inducted on leave  vacancy for a short period and were allowed to continue under the interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioners' appointments are dehorse the rules and thus they are not entitled for regularisation under Section 33  (1-B)  of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board  Act 1982.

10. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 21.11.1990 is discharged.

Dt. 16.5.2006

RKP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.