Court No. - 32
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1020 of 2019 Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gyan Prakash Verma,Prakash Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P. Singh
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Verma, Prakash Chandra Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri JP Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 9, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.8.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48141 of 2007 (Arvind Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of UP and others) whereby the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), UP, Allahabad has been dismissed.
A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was appointed against a short term vacancy on account of suspension of Ram Janam Singh. Admittedly, the suspension of Ram Janam Singh was revoked and he resumed his duty, as such, the short term vacancy against which the appellant was appointed came to an end, as such, the appellant was not entitled to continue in the institution. So far as the claim of adjustment of the appellant against other short term vacancy is concerned, there existed no provision of law against which appellant's short term appointment could be adjusted. The plea of occurrence of other short term vacancy is not substantiated.
The plea of regularization of appellant's services by order dated 12.8.1995 is also disbelieved on account of the fact that the alleged office order/order of regularization dated 12.8.1995 was not found to be issued by the office of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. Finding in this regard has been recorded by the Additional Director of Education, Respondent No. 3 in its impugned order dated 11.9.2007.
Apart from it, it has also come on record that even in the original dispatch register so produced before this Court, there was no reference to the letter dated 12.8.1995. It is also notable that the Respondent No. 3, Additional Director of Education while passing the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 has recorded a finding that the plea of the appellant for adjustment against another short term vacancy was an outcome of manipulation in the document. In the circumstances, the Single Judge was fully justified in holding that in the absence of any statutory provisions neither the appellant could have been appointed nor his services could have been regularized on account of his functioning against short term vacancy. Once short term vacancy against which the appellant was appointed came to an end, his appointment was liable to have been discontinued at that stage itself. The plea of adjustment is not permissible in law.
The Additional Director of Education (Secondary), UP, Allahabad, Respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 as well as the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by judgment and order dated 20.8.2019 have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons. The decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 LawSuit(SC) 420, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In view of the above, we do not see any justification to interfere in the matter or issue any direction for regularization or adjustment of the appellant against short term vacancy.
The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 vinay