High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chhote Lal Gupta v. The State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 14108 of 1991  RD-AH 22 (18 April 2001)
CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.14108 OF 1991
Chhotey Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
The petitioner, Chhotey Lal Gupta has approached this Court under Article 226of the Constitution by filing the present petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice No.Maa. Shi.Aa./193/1991 dated 19.4.1991 notifying Sri Badri Prasad Sandilya, respondent no.3 and others as selected Head Masters of Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bansi, Lalitpur. He further seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Head Master of the aforesaid institution.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has done his M.A. in Hindi and Political Science and has also done B.Ed. course and was appointed on 15.8.1967 as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bansi, Lalitpur. A vacancy of Head Master in the said Vidyalaya occurred on 30.6.1988 on account of the retirement of the permanent Head master. The petitioner was appointed as Head Master on 29.6.1998 by the Authorised Controller. He took charge on 1.7.1988 and continued functioning as Head Master of the Vidyalaya. The Authorised Controller had sent a requisition for selection of Head Master in the Vidyalaya to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission on 22.7.1988 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act,1982. The Commission interviewed the candidates on 5.3.1991 and declared the result on 19.4.1991. The respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.1 in the list of selected candidates. The necessary information about the selection of respondent no.5 was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 29.4.1991.
Heard Dr. R. S. Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri V.S. Dwivedi on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.
The Governor of U.P. promulgated an Ordinance No.28 of 1991 on 6.4.1991, whereby sub sections [1A], [1B], [1C] and  in Section 33-A were inserted. It provided for regularisation of services of certain adhoc teachers. The petitioner claims regularisation of his services as Head Master of the Vidyalaya under sub section [1-A] so inserted by U.P. Ordinance No.28 of 1991, which has subsequently been replaced by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board [Amendment] Act,1991 [U.P. Act No.26 of 1991] w.e.f. 6.4. 1991 section 33-A[1A] reads as follows :
"[1-A] Every teacher appointed by promotion, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph-2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [ Removal of Difficulties ] Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act,1921 shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards [Amendment]Act,1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement."
The submission of the petitioner is that since he had been appointed by way of promotion on ad hoc basis against the substantive vacancy on the post of Head Master in the Vidyalaya in accordance with Paragraph-2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [Removal of Difficulties] Order 1981, [hereinafter referred to as the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order] and had continuously served the institution from the date of the appointment i.e. 1.7.1988 till 6.4.1991 i.e. the date of commencement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board [Amendment ] Act,1991, he stood regularised and therefore, the respondentno.5 cannot be appointed in the Vidyalaya. He further submitted that sub section  of Section 33-A, which provides for exception for regularisation of services under sub section [1A] is not at all attracted in the present institution, inasmuch as the post of Head Master in the Vidyalaya had not already been filled up nor the selection for the said post had been made till 6.4.1991, as the result of the selection was declared by the Commission only on 19.4.1991.
It is not disputed by the Commission that the result was declared on 19.4.1991. Thus, no selection has been made on the post of Head Master in the Vidyalaya till 6.4.1991 and sub section  of section 33-A would not be attracted in the present case, since the petitioner fulfils all the requirements of sub section [1A] of Section 33-A, he would be deemed to have been regularised 6.4.1991 on the commencement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards [Amendment] Act,1991, which came into force on 6.4.1991.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The selection of the respondent no.4 on the post of Head Master in Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bansi, Lalitpur, is setaside. The Commission is directed to adjust the respondentno.5 in some other institution in accordance with law where the post may be available.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.