Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. NEENA VERMA versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Neena Verma v. The State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23766 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10085 (24 May 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

                                                                                              Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23766 of 2007

Smt. Neena Verma

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court requesting therein that services, which he had rendered prior to his regularization be also clubbed for the purposes of computing his seniority.

Brief background of the case is that in the District of Binjor, there is recognized institution known as Girls Inter College, Dhampur, District Bijnor.  Institution in question is duly recognised institution under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Institution in question is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provision of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971 are fully applicable to the institution. In the said institution one Santosh  Tyagi had been performing and discharging her duty as L.T. Grade teacher (Mathematics), she proceeded on leave. Petitioner submits that in the said short term vacancy, which had  occurred  on account of proceeding on leave  from  24.10.1986 to 20.5.1987, petitioner was appointed as per provision as contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order.  As per petitioner, her appointment was duly approved on  29.3.1990 by Regional Inspector of Girls Schools. Petitioner has further contended that thereafter Santosh Tyagi tendered her resignation and petitioner was permitted to continue. Petitioner has contended that her services were regularized under  Section 33-B of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 vide order dated 16.9.1995. Petitioner submits that she was entitled  for  benefit of earlier services rendered also. It has been contended that she had made request also in this regard and D.I.O.S. has recommended the matter to the Joint Director of Education for giving benefit of service rendered by the petitioner before her regularization.  A this juncture present writ petition has been filed requesting therein that benefit of earlier service be extended for the purposes of seniority.

Sri. N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present  earlier appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was on ad-hoc basis and thereafter in continuance of the same, substantive appointment had been offered and as such there is no occasion to ignore the earlier service rendered and as such benefit as prayed be accorded.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that request, which has been made is unsustainable and cannot be accorded, inasmuch as substantive status is accorded only after selection committee considered the matter and further under Chapter II of Regulation III of U.P. Act No. II of 1921  seniority is to be computed from the date of substantive appointment and as such claim made is misconceived.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that petitioner has been appointed in short term vacancy, which had fallen vacant on account of proceeding on leave by Santosh Tyagi, Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade from 24.10.1986 to 20.5.1987. Appointment of petitioner on ad-hoc basis was approved from 21.11.1986 to 30.4.1987. Thereafter petitioner continued to function as leave was extended from time to time, and simultaneously appointment tenure was also extended. Santosh Tyagi tendered her resignation and appointment of petitioner was approved on 29.3.1990 till regular selected candidate was there. Petitioner's services had been regularized on 16.9.1995. Under Chapter II of Regulation III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 seniority is to be computed on the basis of substantive appointment.

In the case of Shetla Prasad Shukla, Vs. State of U.P. 1989 UPLBEC 461 Hon'ble Apex Court in context of provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has taken view that as  far as ad- hoc services, which had been rendered prior to regularization, same cannot be taken into account for the purposes of seniority. Thus issue, which is sought to be raised apparently stands answered by Hon'ble Apex Court  that any service, which had been rendered on ad-hoc basis, same is not at all  liable to be clubbed for computing the seniority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on full bench judgement of this Court in the Case of Farhat Hussain Azad Vs. State of U.P. and others (2005) 1 UPLBEC 474  for the preposition that ad -hoc services are liable to be clubbed, while computing seniority.  Said judgment will not at all  come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that here there are statutory set of Rules and Regulations, which clearly covers the field of computation of seniority, where relevant factor is substantive appointment. On the date, when benefit of regularisation has been extended, provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995, were applicable wherein substantive appointment has been defined in Rule 2(c), meaning an appointment, not being on ad-hoc appointment on the post of teacher made in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder and includes the appointment under Section 33-A or 33-B of the Act. Thus  as  far as ad-hoc appointment is concerned, qua the same no benefit can be extended in the matter of seniority.

Coupled with this in the present  case in the  order of regularization, it has been mentioned that criteria for determining the seniority would be date of substantive appointment and further in case date of appointment is one then age would be the relevant factor for determining the seniority.  Petitioner acquiesced to the same when said order was issued on 16.9.1995 and now attempt is being made to get ever from the said condition to  which he has acquiesced in the past.

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance sand same is dismissed.

Dt. 24.5.2007

T.S.


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.