Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23727 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Asha Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh,Radha Kant Ojha,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vashisth Tiwari
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The petitioner has instituted these proceedings challenging the order by which her claim for regularisation has come to be negatived. Undisputedly and as per the facts which stand reflected from the record, the petitioner came to be engaged against a short term leave vacancy on 24 August 1987. The teacher who had proceeded on leave failed to re-join services for a period of five years. The respondents have taken the stand that upon the expiry of the aforesaid period, the vacancy would be deemed to have become of a substantive nature. They have also taken into consideration that a candidate duly recommended by the Selection Board came to join on the post and thus the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of Section 33B of the 1982 Act.
The Court is of the considered view that the challenge raised in the petition must stand negatived in light of the principles as enunciated by the Full Bench in Jahaj Pal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and another [2019 (3) ADJ 424 (FB)]. Viewed from the point of view of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order which remained in force till 25 January 1999, the engagement of the petitioner would cease to be valid once the vacancy became substantive. If it were tested on the provisions of Section 18 of the 1982 Act as it stood post 14 July 1992, her engagement was to cease once a candidate recommended by the Board joined.
The petitioner also admits that the candidate selected by the Board came to be join the institution in 2010 whereafter her services were discontinued. That order of disengagement was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ A No. 74765 of 2010 which came to be dismissed with the learned Judge noting that in the absence of an order of regularisation the petitioners ad hoc engagement must be recognised as being permissible only till such time as a regularly selected candidate is appointed. The Court had reserved liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in Writ A No. 10278 of 2013 where the petitioner had challenged the earlier order of the DIOS rejecting her claim for regularisation.
That 2013 writ petition was allowed on 26 April 2013 and directions framed for the Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 33B. However, even this claim would not sustain bearing in mind the provisions made in sub section (6) of Section 33B. The Court finds no error in the order impugned.
The writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Faraz