Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM.SEEMA ARORA versus R.I.G.S.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km.Seema Arora v. R.I.G.S. - WRIT - A No. - 15646 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 16874 (25 October 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15646 of 1988

Km. Seem Arora

Versus

Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools

Ist Region Meerut and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

In the district of Muzaffarnagar there is an institution known as Jain Kanya Inter College, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar which is duly recognized institution under the provision as contained in U.P. Act No. II of 1921. In the said institution one Smt. Sunita Gupta had been performing and discharging duties as C.T. grade teacher and on account of her death a substantive vacancy in C.T grade fell vacant. Against the said vacancy in question the Committee of Management of the institution has proceeded to fill up the aforesaid vacancy on ad hoc basis. On the aforesaid post petitioner was selected and thereafter papers were transmitted to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools for according approval to the same. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools Meerut Region Meerut on 04.12.1986 had accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner up till 30.06.1987 or till regular selected candidate was sent by the Selection Board at Allahabad, whichever was earlier. Petitioner submits that no candidate had been recommend by the Selection Board qua the said vacancy but another incumbent Smt. Dayawati Sharma, respondent no. 4 has been sought to be appointed on adhoc basis. In this background petitioner submits that one ad hoc appointee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc appointee.

On presentation of present writ petition before this Court, this Court passed following order which is being quoted below:

"Put up alongwith the writ petition at the time of admission.

Meanwhile operation of the impugned order dated 08.08.1988 passed by respondent no. 1 shall remain stayed. It is, however made clear that the appointment of the petitioner in C.T. grade shall cease when any regular candidate selected by the Board or any reserve pool teacher become available for appointment or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whichever is earlier."

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, petitioner has served both the respondents no. 2 and 3 but in spite of the service of notice both the respondents no. 2 and 3 have not turned up to contest the matter as such matter has been taken up after 18 years with the consent of the parties present for final hearing and disposal.

Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case once petitioner has been appointed on adhoc basis then till regular selected candidate recommended by the Board was not there petitioner cannot be substituted by another adhoc appointee candidate, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that letter of approval itself is clear and categorical that approval was made till 30.06.1987 or till regularly selected candidate was sent by the Selection Board at Allahabad whichever is earlier, as such none of the legal right to the petitioner has been infringed.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that vacancy, which has occurred on account of death of Smt. Suita Gupta, petitioner has been appointed on adhoc basis against the said post. It is equally true that her appointment has been approved till 30.06.1987 or till regularly selected candidate was sent by the Selection Board at Allahabad whichever is earlier. Said rider was imposed keeping in view the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Order, Paragraph 3 which dealt with duration of ad hoc appointment and same was subsequently done away with by deleting said provision, and substituting fresh Paragraph-3 providing therein that such ad-hoc appointee shall cease to continue when candidates recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. It is well settled that one adhoc appointee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc appointee. Once no regular process of selection has been undertaken and once no candidate has been sent by the Board, then condition which has been imposed in the order of approval dated 04.12.1986 was redundant condition and same was of no consequence as no regular selection has been made till date or no regular selected candidate has been sent by the Board and had joined.

In the present case one adhoc appointee has been substituted by another adhoc appointee and said incumbent has not come forward to question the validity of the claim which has been set up by the petitioner as such order dated 08.08.1988 appointing another incumbent in place of the petitioner is hereby quashed.

In case petitioner is still continuing and performing and discharging duties and till date no regularly selected candidate has been recommended by the Board and as various provision has been introduced in U.P. Act No. V of 1982 for extending the benefit of regularisation, as such claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

In term of above, writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

No orders as to cost.

25.10.2007

Dhruv


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.