Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Jagriti Shukla v. C.A.T. Allahabad Bench & Others - WRIT - A No. 32715 of 2001 [2004] RD-AH 1295 (2 November 2004)


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).


Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27057 of 1996

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra and others............................    Petitioners.


The Director Higher Education U.P.,Allahabad & others.......     Respondents.


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12748 of 2004

Committee of Management of Lala Laxmi Narain

Degree College, Sirsa Allahabad .......................................Petitioner.


State of Uttar Pradesh and others....................................... Respondents.


Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble V.S.Bajpai, J

1. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dr. Ravindra Nath Misra and Dr. Bachau Prasad Pathak (the petitioners) were appointed as lecturers in the year 1988-1989 in Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad (the College). They filed a writ petition No. 35210 of 1991 for a declaration that they are ad-hoc lecturers in the college and for payment of salary. This writ petition was disposed of on 21.8.1995 with the directions to the Director of Education to decide their representation. The Director of Education decided the same on 6.8.1996. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 27057 of 1996 against this order.

2. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State Government passed an order on 8.9.197 directing that the services of the petitioners as ad-hoc lecturers be treated as continuous after April, 1990 and the question of their regularisation may be considered. It was further directed that these lecturers will be paid salary by the committee of management from its own resources. The committee of management of the college filed writ petition No. 33357 of 1997 challenging this order.

3. The aforesaid two writ petitions were decided on 12.11.98. The writ petition filed by the petitioners namely, writ petition No. 27057 of 1996 was allowed and the writ petition filed by the committee of management namely writ petition No. 33357 of 1997 was dismissed. The committee of management filed two Special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. Initially an interim order was granted on 10.12.1999, thereafter, both Special leave petitions were allowed on 16.4.2003. In the one SLP relating to Writ Petition No. 33357 of 1993 the Government order dated 8.9.1997 was set aside. In the other SLP that related to the writ petition No. 27057 of 1996 filed by the petitioners, the case was remanded to the High Court to be decided again.

4. It appears that the Committee of management treated the post to be vacant and send requisition to for regular appointment. The Commission selected regular candidates and they have joined the College. The petitioners have amended the writ petition No. 27057 of 1996, challenged their appointment, and have also impleaded them (the newly added respondents).

5. It appears that during pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court, the cases for regularisation of lecturers were considered and on 26.2.2001 many teachers including the petitioners were regularised. The State Government, thereafter, passed an order in this regard on 26.2.2001. The committee of management filed writ petition No12748 of 2004 against this order. Now the writ petition No.27057 of 1996 and writ petition No. 12748 of 2004 have come up for hearing.

6. We have heard Sri R.N.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Mitthal and Sri DC.Misra counsels for the petitioners; Sri U.N. Sharma, Sri Ajai Rajendra and Sri J.P.Rai, counsels for the Committee of Management and newly impleaded respondents; and the standing counsel for the State officials.

7. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already been regularised by the Regularisation Committed on 26.2.2001 and they are entitled to be appointed on this ground.

8. The committee of management has challenged the order dated 26.2.2001 in the Writ petition No. 12748 of 2004. It has alleged that there is no order regularising the services of the petitioners. The Director of Education has filed a counter-affidavit in which he has stated that the original order regularising the petitioners is not traceable in his office. As such it cannot be said whether the petitioners were regularised or not. For purposes of this case, we assume that there is no order regularising the services of the petitioners. In such an event the petitioners are atleast entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with law under section 31-C U.P. Higher Services Commission, Act 1980 (the Act).

9. The counsel for the Committee of management and newly added respondent relied upon the order of the Director of Education dated 6.8.1996 and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularised for the following reasons:-

(i) The petitioners are merely part time and not ad-hoc lecturers.

(ii) The petitioners have not worked after 30th April, 1990.

10. This court had earlier allowed the writ petition No. 35210 of 1991. The Court had recorded some findings and some factual aspect was left to be decided by the Director. This Court had held that the petitioners were ad-hoc lecturers and have worked beyond April 30, 1990. The order dated 21.8.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 35210 of 1991 has become final. In view of this the order of the Director holding otherwise is illegal and no reliance can be placed on the same.

11. The fact that the petitioners were ad-hoc lecturers or have worked beyond 30.4.1990 does not entitle them to be regularised. They have to satisfy the other condition mentioned in section 31-C of the Act and have to be in service on the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992. The question of regularisation is to be considered in light of Section 31-C of the Act. In view of this we remand the case to the Director of Education to decide the controversy between the parties afresh by a speaking order after affording opportunity to the parties. In case the petitioners satisfy the other conditions of Section 31-C of the Act then selection committee as envisaged therein may be constituted to consider their cases. This entire exercise may be done at an early date, if possible within period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. In case the petitioners are regularised then newly added respondent will have to be replaced. They are selected candidates by the Commission. We do hereby clarify that the newly added respondents will be adjusted against the vacancy in the advertisement against which they were selected or in any future vacancies. It is also clarified that in case the petitioners are regularised then they will be entitled to all consequential benefits except the salary and allowances for the period that they have not taught.

13. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.




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


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 |

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