Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3018 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Rai
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 6.3.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh. The order impugned appears to have been passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in petitioner's earlier Writ Petition No. 44993 of 2013 decided on 27.10.2017, vide following orders:-
"Two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed today by the State respondent which are taken on record.
The respondent no.3 is also personally present in the Court whose personal presence is exempted.
Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Mohan Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
The petitioner was appointed as adhoc assistant teacher in L.T. Grade in the year 1998 in the institution of respondent no.6. In the year 2013, a regularly selected candidate was appointed and she joined in the institution and as such the services of the petitioner were discontinued. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of appointment of regularly selected candidate i.e. respondent no.7 dated 3.7.2013 issued by DIOS, Hathras and the communication letter dated 12.8.2013 issued by the DIOS, Hathras to the respondent no.6, Committee of Management. I do not find any illegality in discontinuing the petitioner when regularly selected candidate joined.
However subsequent event as stated in the supplementary affidavit deserves consideration that the regularly selected candidate has left the institution on 29.1.2015 and therefore, the petitioner has a right to continue as an adhoc assistant teacher in the same position as he was earlier working in the respondent no.6 institution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel jointly state that the petitioner may submit a representation before the respondent no.3 who shall consider it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a time bound period.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to press his grievances before the respondent no.3 by filing a representation within three weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order and other relevant papers including the relevant Government Orders or notifications which she may intend to rely and if such a representation is made within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision thereon shall be taken by the respondent no.3 strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within next eight weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties including the respondent no.6 i.e. the Committee of Management.
The decision taken by the respondent no.3 on the representation of the petitioner shall be communicated to her immediately."
The claim of petitioner accordingly has been considered and rejected vide order impugned. The order impugned records that there was only one post against which petitioner was offered adhoc appointment and once the regular incumbent has joined, the petitioner would have no right to continue.
It transpires that petitioner's claim was directed to be examined by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017, in view of the fact that regular incumbent had left the institution on 21.1.2015. In case the regular incumbent has left the job on 21.1.2015, a fresh vacancy would arise against which petitioner cannot claim any right to continue on account of her adhoc appointment made earlier. The plea of petitioner that she was continuing on a different post is also not substantiated. The plea in that regard is not worth acceptance inasmuch as there is no plea taken in the writ petition that the petitioner was the only person appointed against two vacancies created.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 n.u.