Arun Kumar Singh v. Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 6 Others

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6578 of 2024 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Respondent :- Stat Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶1Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. R. K.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.6.

¶2Petition has been filed challenging order dated

30.01.2024 whereby claim of petitioner for regularization under Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education [Services Selection Boards] Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982) has been rejected. A further prayer for permission to work and discharge duties and for payment of regular salary has also been sought.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in a bunch of petitions with leading petition being WRIT - A No. - 8437 of 2023, Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others to submit that a similar issue has already been adjudicated upon through aforesaid judgment whereunder the orders of rejection were quashed and the dispute was relegated back to Regional Level Committee to pass orders afresh after calling the records from the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspectors of Schools concerned.

¶4The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:- "30. In view of the above said submissions and discussions, it is apparent that the orders impugned in all the writ petitions have been passed in a cyclostyle manner, without associating the petitioners in the proceeding and without ensuring the records from the Committee of Management/District Inspector of Schools concern and further without following with any procedure, as it is provided under Section 33-C(2)(b) of the Act, 1982. Thus, the impugned orders on its face, are unlawful and against the settled proposition of law.

¶31Consequently, the orders of rejection, assailed in the present bunch of writ petitions are hereby quashed.

¶32The writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.

¶33All the matters are relegated back to the Regional Level Committees concerned to pass order afresh within a period of three months, after calling the records from the committee of management as well as the District Inspectors of Schools concern and by verifying the same. It is further directed that the petitioners shall also be provided the opportunity of hearing, if so required. The scheme provided under Section 33-G of the Act, 1982 shall strictly be adhered to, keeping in view of the requirement of procedure to be adopted by the Committee so constituted.

¶34In addition, it is further provided that the petitioners of the present bunch of writ petitions are entitled to continue in service and shall be paid salary without any further break, till the decision so taken by the committee concerned. The petitioners as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management shall ensure their presence and would co-operate with the Regional Level Committee, as and when required."

¶5Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State admits that the present dispute is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment. However he also stands by the objections raised by him as noted in aforesaid judgment and order.

¶6Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, it transpires that this Court has recorded a finding that the claim of petitioners to be appointed either under Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) order, 1981 or the unamended Section 18 of the Act of 1982 was required to be examined thoroughly by the Regional Level Committee while ensuring production of records from the Committee of Management as well as District Inspector of Schools. It is also observed that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order and the provisions of Section 33-C(2)(b) of the Act of 1982 have also been not considered.

¶7A perusal of impugned order makes it evident that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶8It is contended that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. A pleading to this effect has been specifically taken in the writ petition. These facts could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of available records and instructions. In this wake this Court finds that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before his case for regularization is finally decided by the competent authorities.

¶9In view thereof, the impugned order dated

30.01.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing opposite party no.4 i.e. Regional Regularization Committee, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to adhere to directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 in the case of petitioner as well.

¶10With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Vandit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench