1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tanay Hazari, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.4 & 5.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2002 and the consequential order dated 23.11.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Unnao rejecting the representation of the petitioner for regularization of her services on the post of Assistant Teacher. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher in L.T. Grade against the leave vacancy in Dr. G. Nath G. Dayal Balika Inter College, Unnao. Subsequently, the petitioners' appointment was made against a clear vacancy. It has been stated that the petitioner has been continuously working in C.T. Grade from 16.12.1985 and was being paid salary after her approval by the Regional Inspectoress of Schools. Vide order dated 28.08.1989, the services of the petitioner were terminated which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8595 (S/S) of 1989 which was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 whereby the termination order was set aside granting liberty to the opposite parties to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization of her service in accordance with law.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 will indicate that the submissions of the opposite parties with regard to her appointment being illegal were held to be fallacious and misconceived. It was held that the Management having accepted her as a duly appointed teacher, having taken work, having obtained approval from the Regional Inspectoress of Girls Schools, by their conduct themselves have accepted the petitioner as a duly appointed teacher and therefore issuance of appointment letter became meaningless. Even the termination order was quashed on the ground of having been issued without jurisdiction. The said judgment also referred to the interim order granted in the said writ petition and in view thereof recorded that the petitioner may have become eligible for being considered for regularization for which liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application which was to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. The impugned order has been passed as a consequence thereof rejecting the application for regularization.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it clear that the representation for regularization of the services of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and not in accordance with law and therefore, there can be no question of regularization of the services of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel, as a consequence, has submitted that reasoning indicated in the impugned order is in the teeth of the findings recorded by this Court earlier by means of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002. It has been further submitted that once this Court has already held the appointment of the petitioner to be valid, it was not open to the authorities concerned to review that finding being subordinate to this Court.It has also been submitted that the said findings recorded by this Court became final in view of the fact that the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 was not appealed against.
5. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the basis of counter-affidavit has submitted that the question of regularization of services of the petitioner would arise only in case the initial appointment itself was valid. He has further submitted that on account of the fact that initial appointment of the petitioner was against the rules, there can be no question of regularization of services of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the matter pertaining to regularization of services of the petitioner had been left open for the consideration of the authority concerned by this Court earlier by means of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 and therefore the authority in question has passed the impugned order on the basis of the material available before him.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. A perusal of the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that regularization of services of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was dehors the rules and therefore her continuation in service could not be taken into account in view of the said fact. A perusal of the impugned order will also make it clear that the rejection of regularization of services of the petitioner is not based on any other ground apart from the said fact.
8. Once the aspect pertaining to the validity of appointment of the petitioner has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 holding the petitioner to be validly appointed, it was not open to the authority concerned to have reviewed the findings recorded by this Court particularly in view of the fact that the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 attained finality and was not appealed against. Thus, it was not open to the opposite parties to have rejected the representation of the petitioner on a ground which has been specifically rejected by this Court earlier.
9. In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order being unsustainable, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 28.09.2002 and consequential order dated 23.11.2002. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the competent authority constituted in terms of the Section 33 B of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 to consider the matter pertaining to regularization of services of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 8595 (S/S) of 1989. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said authority. The payment of salary to the petitioner for the relevant period on which she was working shall also be considered and paid in terms of the directions issued by this Court earlier vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2002.
10. In terms of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Ashok Gupta