Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8655 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lal Jee Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to fourth respondent i.e. Committee of Management.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent i.e. Regional Joint Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi to regularise the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade under Section 33 (B) (1) (a) (iii) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
The record in question reflects that the matter relates to Sri Ganesh Ram Inter College, Batauveer Shahpur, Jaunpur, which receives aid from the State Exchequer. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short "Act of 1921") and U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 as well as U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commissioner Board Act, 1982 (in short "Act of 1982") are applicable to institution. It is claimed that the petitioner was initially appointed in the institution in question on 30.01.1991 under Section 18 on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT grade against short term vacancy after due advertisement and intimation made to Selection Board. The fourth respondent- Committee of Management recommended the selection to third respondent for approval. Once salary to the petitioner was not paid, he preferred Writ Petition No.2126 of 1992 for a direction to respondents for payment of salary against the post in question on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was made under Section 18 and as such there was no requirement for approval from the District Inspector of School (DIOS). In the said writ petition initially interim order was accorded on 21.1.1992 and finally the writ petition was disposed of on 17.8.1999 with observation that in case the petitioner is continuing in service, his appointment shall not be disturbed except in accordance with law. The aforesaid judgment was complied with and the petitioner has been paid his salary till date. It is contended that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and he represented the respondents repeatedly for his regularisation under Section 33 (B) (1) (a) (iii) of the Act of 1982 but of no avail and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the second respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the Committee of Management in question also.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 SP/