# Bhanu Pratap Singh Shishodia & Anr v. D.I.O.S. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 696
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-07
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhanu-pratap-singh-shishodia-anr-v-d-i-o-s-and-ors-42558
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education(Service
and
Selection Board)Act 1982 Section 33-c(2)A-
Regularization of Ad-hoc lecturer-working
either
on
short
term
or
substantive
capacity-petitioner working pursuance of
interim
order-Regional
Committee
to
consider regularization within 3 months.

Held: Para-10
This Court in Yash Karan Singh (supra) has
considered the judgement of Supreme
Court in Committee of Management, Arya
Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur
and another v. Sree Kumar Tiwari and
Another reported 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1133
and Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt.
Pramila
Misra
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi reported
in 1997(2) ESC 1284; Raj Kumar Verma and
Another v. D.I.O.S. Saharanpur and others,
1999 (3) ESC 1950 and Smt. Shashi Saxena
and others v. Deputy Director of Education
and others reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1990,
this Court issued direction to Selection
Committee to consider the cause of the
teachers therein for regularisation under
section 33 B of Act No. 5 of 1982. In Yesh
Karan Singh v. DIOS and Another (supra)
also teacher was working on the strength of
interim order for a quite long time.

Case Law discussed:
1997(2)UPLBEC1133;
1997(2)
ESC
1284;
1999(3) ESC 1950; 2000(3) ESC 1990; Special
Appeal No. 1591 of 2006; Special Appeal No.
2627 of 1990

## Text

696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
obviously is in the negative. Maybe that
the learned Advocate absented himself
deliberately or intentionally. We have no
material for ascertaining that aspect of the
matter. We say nothing more on that
aspect of the matter. However, we cannot
be a party to an innocent party suffering
injustice merely because his chosen
advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow
this appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court both dismissing the appeal and
refusing to recall that order. We direct
that the appeal be restored to its original
number in the High Court and be disposed
of according to law. If there is a stay of
dispossession it will continue till the
disposal of the matter by the High Court.
There remains the question as to who
shall pay the costs of the respondent here.
As we feel that the party is not
responsible because he has done whatever
was possible and was in his power to do,
the costs amounting to Rs.200 should be
recovered
from
the
advocate
who
absented himself. The right to execute
that order is reserved with the party
represented by Mr.A.K.Sanghi."

14. Bearing in the mind the
aforesaid law, in my view petitioner shall
not be made to suffer on account of
dismissal of his writ petition for non
prosecution.
If,
petitioner
makes
representation for payment of salary for
the period when he actually worked, the
respondent no.2 shall pass a separate
order in respect of the said representation
having regard to the fact that if the
petitioner has worked during the said
period his salary shall be paid to him.

15. After careful consideration of the
facts, in my view the impugned order dated
16.4.1992 for aforestated reasons needs to be
set aside, it is accordingly set aside.

16. The respondents shall give
opportunity to the petitioner and pass a
fresh order. While passing the order, the
respondent no. 1, shall have the regard to
the fact that the petitioner is working in
compliance of the interim order dated
18.6.1992, passed by this Court and in the
counter affidavit there is no averment that
the work and conduct of the petitioner
was unsatisfactory.

17. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case a direction is
issued upon the respondent no.1,Inspector
General of Registration, U.P. Allahabad
to give opportunity to the petitioner and
pass order in the light of the observations
made above within three months from the
date of communication of this order. The
interim protection granted by this Court to
the petitioner shall continue after fifteen
days of the decision taken by the
respondent no.1.

18. With the aforesaid observations
the writ petition is disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25133 Of 1992

Bhanu Pratap Singh Shishodia & Anr.

 ...Petitioners
Versus
D.I.O.S. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Sinha, Sri A.P. Singh Raghav
Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, Sri Anil Yadav
Sri S.P. Singh, Sri Jitendra Rana
Sri
S.P.S.
Chauhan
2 All] Bhanu Pratap Singh Shishodia & Anr. Vs. D.I.O.S. and Ors.
697
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education(Service
and
Selection Board)Act 1982 Section 33-c(2)A-
Regularization of Ad-hoc lecturer-working
either
on
short
term
or
substantive
capacity-petitioner working pursuance of
interim
order-Regional
Committee
to
consider regularization within 3 months.

Held: Para-10
This Court in Yash Karan Singh (supra) has
considered the judgement of Supreme
Court in Committee of Management, Arya
Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur
and another v. Sree Kumar Tiwari and
Another reported 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1133
and Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt.
Pramila
Misra
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi reported
in 1997(2) ESC 1284; Raj Kumar Verma and
Another v. D.I.O.S. Saharanpur and others,
1999 (3) ESC 1950 and Smt. Shashi Saxena
and others v. Deputy Director of Education
and others reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1990,
this Court issued direction to Selection
Committee to consider the cause of the
teachers therein for regularisation under
section 33 B of Act No. 5 of 1982. In Yesh
Karan Singh v. DIOS and Another (supra)
also teacher was working on the strength of
interim order for a quite long time.

Case Law discussed:
1997(2)UPLBEC1133;
1997(2)
ESC
1284;
1999(3) ESC 1950; 2000(3) ESC 1990; Special
Appeal No. 1591 of 2006; Special Appeal No.
2627 of 1990

(Delivered by Hon'ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.)

1. The petitioners preferred this writ
petition for a direction upon the respondents
to pay the salary of the petitioners as Teacher
in Lecturer Grade and to accord approval for
regular promotion of the petitioners.

2. Brief reference to the factual
aspects would suffice.

3. Rana Sangram Singh Inter College,
Bishara, district Ghaziabad is a recognised
institution, wherein education is imparted
upto the level of Intermediate. It receives aid
out of State Fund. the provisions of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
Regulations framed thereunder, the Uttar
Pradesh Secondary Education (Services
Selection Board) Act, 1982 (U.P.Act No. 5
of 1982), and the U.P.High Schools and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971
are applicable to the institution. The
institution is administered by the respondent
no.2, i.e. Committee of Management.

4. It is stated that petitioner no. 1
unfortunately died during the pendency of
the writ petition. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he is pressing the
relief on behalf of petitioner no.2 only.

5. The petitioner no.2 was initially
appointed on 9.7.1973 (wrongly mentioned
in the writ petition as 16.12.1998). It is
stated that three posts of lecturer fell vacant
in the College on account of retirement of
teachers working in lecturer grade in
English, Sanskrit and History subjects.
There are total ten sanctioned post of
lecturer. The petitioner no.2 did his M.A. in
Sanskrit and he is B.Ed. also. The petitioner
no.2 moved an application for his regular
promotion in lecturer grade under 50%
promotion quota. Application of the
petitioner no.2 was considered by the
Committee of Management and passed a
resolution recommending the name of the
petitioner no.2 for promotion in lecturer
grade. All relevant papers were furnished to
the office of the District Inspector of
Schools and the petitioner was promoted on
ad hoc basis on 31.10.1991. It is stated that
papers for regular promotion were also sent
to the Commission on 4.11.1991. When no
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
steps were taken for regular promotion of the
petitioner in lecturer's grade, he preferred
writ petition before this Court. This Court
passed the following interim order :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

So far as relief regarding issuance of
a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents
to
pay
salary
to
the
petitioners is concerned, the same is intertuined with the decision in the referred
writ petition No. of 1992 filed on behalf
of Smt. Durgesh Kumari, inasmuch as the
Adhoc appointments of the petitioners
were made after the embargo put on the
appointments. As regards the relief
regarding issuance of a direction to the
commission for according the approval to
the proposal for regular promotion under
Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission Rules, 1983 is
concerned, the same may be examined
and considered if and when the Secondary
Education Services Commission resumes
its functioning inasmuch as the learned
counsel for the parties are not sure
whether the Act passed by the State
legislature
abolishing
the
Secondary
Education Services Commission and
substituting it by the Regional Selection
Board has been accorded assent to by the
President of India.

Accordingly list this petition for
admission after three months. It is made
clear that in case the petitioners are
working as lecturers on ad hoc basis in the
concerned institution, they would not be
disturbed until further order of this Court.
"

6. It is stated that on the strength of
interim
order,
uninterruptedly,
the
petitioner continued to work in the
institution and salary paid.

7. During the course of the
proceedings the State Government has
amended the Act and certain provisions
have been made for regularization of ad
hoc teachers appointed under Section 18
of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
(Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 read
with Difficulties of Removal Orders.
Section 33 A was inserted by U.P.Act No.
19 of 1985 (w.e.f. 28.12.1994) Section 33
B was brought on Statute Book by
U.P.Act No. 1 of 1993 (w.e.f. 7.8.1993),
Section 33 C and Section 33 D were
inserted by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998
(w.e.f. 20.4.1998) and 33 F was inserted
by U.P.Act No. 5 of 2001 (w.e.f.
30.12.2000).

8. The objects of these amendments
were to regularize ad hoc teachers
appointed from time to time against
substantive vacancies and short term
vacancies, as the case may be. It is
common
knowledge
that
Commission/Board
takes
considerable
long time to complete the process of
recruitment. It is impossible to fill huge
vacancies that goes on increasing by
passing years.

9. Having regard to said object and
intention of the legislature I am of the
view that if two views are possible while
considering regularization of teachers, the
authorities concern may take a view
which favour the teacher. Having said so,
I hasten to add that statutory provisions
cannot
be
bypassed. The
Selection
Committees constituted are invested with
Statutory power to examine the cases of
regularization in terms of conditions
mentioned
in
the
above
sections.
2 All] Umesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others
699

10. This Court in Yash Karan Singh
(supra) has considered the judgement of
Supreme
Court
in
Committee
of
Management, Arya Nagar Inter College,
Arya Nagar, Kanpur and another v. Sree
Kumar Tiwari and Another reported 1997 (2)
UPLBEC 1133 and Full Bench decision of
this Court in Smt. Pramila Misra v. Deputy
Director of Education, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi reported in 1997(2) ESC 1284; Raj
Kumar Verma and Another v. D.I.O.S.
Saharanpur and others, 1999 (3) ESC 1950
and Smt. Shashi Saxena and others v.
Deputy Director of Education and others
reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1990, this Court
issued direction to Selection Committee to
consider the cause of the teachers therein for
regularisation under section 33 B of Act No.
5 of 1982. In Yesh Karan Singh v. DIOS and
Another (supra) also teacher was working
on the strength of interim order for a quite
long time.

11. Relevant would it be, to mention
that similar orders in same set of facts have
been passed by different Division Benches
and by learned Single Hon'ble Judges.
Reference may be made to some of the
cases: Smt. Indu Gautam v. DIOS Aligarh
(Special Appeal No. 643 of 2012) ; Smt.
Sadhna Sharma v. State of U.P. (Special
Appeal No. 1591 of 2006; Writ Petition No.
2627 of 1990 Smt. Madhu Bala Gupta and
another v. State of U.P. ; Writ Petition No.
24383 of 1989 V .K.Sharma v. State of U.P.
and Writ Petition No. 11797 of 1994 Shashi
Prakash Dubey and Another v. DIOS and
others.

12. As a result, I am of the view that
end of justice would be met if a direction is
issued upon the Regional Committee headed
by the Joint Director of Education under
section 33 -C (2 a) of the Act, to consider the
cause of the petitioner for regularization of
the petitioner in accordance with law. The
said exercise shall be completed by the
Regional Committee as expeditiously as
possible preferably within three months from
the date of communication of this order.

13. The writ petition is disposed of.

14. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25619 Of 2011

Umesh Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.W. Khan, Sri J.H. Khan
Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section 6N- Termination of Tube Well Operatorchallenged before Writ Court pursuance of
stay
working-regularization
petitiondismissed as after expiry of 3 years-noextension-and during this the tube-well
failed-on this ground termination order
passed-which
remained
unchallengeconsequently
regularization
deniedpetitioner
raised
Industrial
disputedrejection on ground in absence of reference
order regarding provisions of Section 6-P
and 6 Q-adjudication not possible-held
illegal-working more than 240 days not
denied-consequent to failure of tub-well
other juniors allowed allowed to work and
regularized subsequently-petitioner entitled
for reinstatement-considering delay of 11
years-in perusing litigation before Writ
Court-relief for back wages denied-order
passed by Labour Court set a side.