Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9474 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Sr. Advocate( Sri Ashok Khare) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Tiwari
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners were appointed against the substantive vacancies under Section 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1921') by the Committee of Management.They have approached this Court with the grievance that though they have been appointed in the year 2018 but salary is not being paid to them. A direction was issued in Writ Petition No. 17326 of 2018 (Ashutosh Kumar Mishra and others Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and others) for consideration of such claim and thereafter a Contempt Petition No. 5252 of 2019 has also been disposed of with similar direction.
The Board has issued advertisement on 20.4.2021 for substantive appointment against which petitioners have also applied. Petitioners' contention is that they are entitled to award of weightage fpr the services rendered on account of their initial appointment under Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921. Reliance is placed upon an order of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 28.6.2021.
So far as the order passed by the Supreme Court is concerned, the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court and the issue is being examined. This Court is, therefore, not required to observe anything in respect of the issues which are already engaging attention of the Supreme Court. It is, however, mentioned in the petition that petitioners have been appointed against vacancies which arose in the institution from 2003 to 2017. All vacancies are substantive in nature. Such vacancies are expected to be filled only by the Board and any other appointment made by the managing committee against the substantive vacancy would clearly be inconsistent with Section 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1982'). By virtue of Section 16 (2) of the Act of 1982, such appointment would clearly be void.
So far as Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921 is concerned, the provision only permits the management to fill up unforeseen vacancies arising during the academic year. It would not permit the management to make appointments against substantive vacancies of previous years which is already notified to the Board.
Considering the nature of petitioner's appointment, this Court is not persuaded to issue any direction for grant of weightage in the exercise initiated for regular appointment.
Dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 n.u.