Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA versus DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL, SHAHJAHANPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yogesh Kumar Gupta v. District Inspector Of School, Shahjahanpur And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 257 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4113 (9 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

C.J.'s Court.

Special   Appeal   No.  257   of   2007.

Yogesh Kumar Gupta .....Appellant

      Versus

District Inspector of Schools,

Shahjahanpur & others .....Respondents

:::::::::::

Mr. Lalta Prasad Tiwari : Counsel for appellant.

Mr. B.B. Jauhari : Counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale,  C.J.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tiwari in support of this appeal, Mr. B.B. Jauhari appears for respondent No.2 and learned standing counsel for the State appears for respondent No.1.

2. This appeal by an erstwhile teacher of the Sardar Patel Hindu Intermediate College, Shahjahanpur, seeks to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The petition challenged the termination of the petitioner dated 11th August, 1997. The short facts leading to this order of termination are as follows:-

3. The petitioner joined this college to teach commerce sometimes in the year 1983 in a short-term vacancy. He continued from 1983 to 1990 with breaks during the summer vacations. In the year 1990 he was terminated. He challenged his termination by an earlier writ petition wherein a stay was granted on 17th July, 1992. The writ petition was allowed on 3rd February, 1993 whereafter the petitioner continued till he was discontinued in August, 1997. He has been  terminated on 11th of August, 1997.

4. What is material to note is that the petitioner was engaged in a post known as C.T. Grade. The case of the Management is that this C.T. Grade post has been declared as dying cadre on 11th August, 1989. Independent of that it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be accommodated for the reason that he was occupying the vacancy of one Shiv Ram Singh, who was initially in the C.T. Grade and who had been subsequently promoted and accommodated in the higher grade known as L.T. Grade. Over and above that it is the case of the Management that one Buddha Pal Singh has been subsequently appointed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission in the L.T. Grade and, therefore, there is no occasion to accommodate the petitioner-appellant anymore and that his termination is a valid termination. As against that the case of the appellant is that the persons employed in the C.T. Grade prior to 13th May, 1989, though against a short-term vacancy,  are eligible to be regularised and reliance is placed on the provisions in Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. The respondents case undoubtedly is that the mechanism under Section 33-B is not available to the petitioner on facts as well as in law. It is also submitted that the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools is not challenged by the petitioner-appellant.

5. We have noted the submissions of both the counsel. The fact remains that on the one hand the appellant has put in long years of service, though with intermittent breaks. He had worked from 1983 to 1990, thereafter from 14th July, 1992 to 3rd February, 1993 and then until 11th of August, 1997.

6. We are of the opinion that the selection committee created under sub-section (2) of Section 33-B of the aforesaid Act ought to examine the submissions of both the parties including the submission of the respondents that that is not a forum available to the petitioner-appellant in view of the facts of the case. It is for this limited purpose that we interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has dismissed the writ petition. We admit the appeal and having noted the submissions of both the parties, we allow it in part permitting the appellant to approach the selection committee under Section 33-B(2) of the aforesaid Act to decide as to whether the petitioner-appellant was eligible to be regularised on 11th of August, 1997. We make it clear that this decision does not mean we are in any way holding that the Committee does have jurisdiction or that it does not have jurisdiction. We are also not expressing on the merits of the case of the appellant as well as that of the respondents. It is a forum created under the Statute and that being the position, it will be in the fitness of things that the Committee will examine whether such type of claim ought to lie before the Committee and if it does lie before the Committee on the facts of the case whether the teacher concerned is entitled to the relief that he is seeking. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to continuity in service nor for any back wages  from 11th of August, 1997.

The appeal is allowed in part.

(Chief Justice)

(Ashok Bhushan)

Date 9.3.2007.

Rakesh


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.