Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 151 of 2018
Appellant :- Braj Kishor
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bharat Pratap Singh,Yogendra Singh Bohra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the appellant.
We find from the order sheet that the delay has already been condoned and the appeal has been given a regular number.
The first argument of counsel for the appellant is that after the judgment of Apex Court affirming the judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India 2015 (8) ADJ 338, the State Government issued directions contained in the impugned Government order dated 20.9.2017 by erroneously applying the said ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court against those who were continuing as Assistant Primary Teacher (Shiksha Mitra) including the appellant and were already receiving salary of that grade, but under the said Government order the same was reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month and the engagement of the appointment was reduced to 11 months only. For this no notice or opportunity was provided to the appellant, and secondly this action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the same judgment while having been considered in the State of Uttarakhand, certain benefits have been extended to similarly situate candidates, who had been appointed as Shiksha Mitra on the same pattern as in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact similar candidates in the State of Uttarakhand had approached the High Court of Uttarakhand where directions were issued whereupon the State Government issued the necessary orders extending the same benefit as is being claimed by the appellant.
It is urged that learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has simply relied on another judgment of a learned single Judge in the case of Arvind and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others in Writ Petition No.39620 of 2017 decided on 19.9.2017, the facts whereof were different, inasmuch as, in that case the petitioners were seeking absorption against 6160 posts whereas in the instant case the appellant was continuing and his prayer was to quash the said Government order dated 20.9.2017 and to allow him to continue in the same status as he was continuing earlier. Accordingly, the facts of the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) was not at all attracted in the present case and therefore, the learned single Judge has committed an error in proceeding to dismiss the writ petition on that ground.
We have also heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and we find that the judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) came to be confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment have been extracted in the impugned Government order by the respondent State Government allowing limited benefits which is being questioned by the appellant-petitioner.
The first ground urged is that such a Government order is in violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant ought to have been given an opportunity when the status and emoluments both are being reduced. We are unable to accept this submission, inasmuch as, the Government order is simply a compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. There being no other possible view, there is no occasion for the appellant to claim any right of hearing before issuance of the Government order.
The second ground taken is parity of such teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. If the State of Uttarakhand has extended certain benefits on the basis of directions issued by Uttarakhand High Court, the same is not binding on the State of Uttar Pradesh and if the State of Uttar Pradesh has taken a decision to provide a sum of Rs.10,000 per month for a period of 11 months, it cannot be said that any discrimination has been practiced. This will not amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) has clearly taken a view that no rights stand conferred on the basis of the earlier appointment.
In such circumstances, except for appearing in the subsequent two recruitments, no further right can be claimed by the appellant.
Learned counsel then submits that the qualifications have already been acquired by the appellant and therefore he is not required to complete or to undergo any further scrutiny. This argument is misconceived, inasmuch as, the directions of the Supreme Court cannot be interpreted by us like a statute. If the appellant wants to attach a different meaning to the same, it is open to the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. It is not for this Court to extend any such benefit as claimed by the appellant. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge.
The Special Appeal is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Kpy/VS