# Rakesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 761
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-07
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 907 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51477
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Regularization of Ad-hoc
Teacher - Procedural Fairness - Petitioner
challenged the rejection of his regularization
claim by the Regional Selection Committee,
which cited the conversion of a short-term
vacancy (1997) into a substantive vacancy
(2008) as the reason for denial - Held, the
Committee's order was based on incorrect facts,
as the vacancy arose due to the ad-hoc
promotion of another teacher, who was reverted
in 2003, and the cancellation of petitioner's
appointment in 2005 was quashed by the
Additional Director of Education in 2008 - The
Committee's failure to verify records or consult
relevant authorities rendered the order dated
29.12.2023 arbitrary and unsustainable - Matter
remitted for fresh consideration with directions
to verify records and involve the Committee of
Management and petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7,
16, 17)

B. Service Law - Duty of Regional
Selection Committee - Due Diligence - The
Regional Selection Committee acted negligently
by not verifying critical documents, including the
order
dated
5.12.2008,
and
relied
on
contradictory facts - Held, such committees
must thoroughly examine records, verify facts
with the Committee of Management and
Director of Education, and provide reasoned
findings
on
vacancy
existence,
candidate
eligibility, and approval status - Casual or
cursory orders affecting teachers' careers,
especially those serving for decades, are
impermissible and may warrant reprimand -
Director of Education directed to ensure
committees adhere to these principles. (Paras 6,
7, 8, 13, 14, 15)

C. Service Law - Protection of Ad-hoc
Teachers - Supreme Court Precedents -
Relying on *Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St. of
U.P.* and *Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B Vs Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare*, the court held that ad-hoc
teachers
serving
for
decades
cannot
be
terminated merely due to irregularities by the
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee of Management unless the teacher is
complicit
in
fraud
or
ineligible
-
Held,
petitioner's
appointment,
approved
and
continued for over two decades, cannot be
summarily
rejected
without
evidence
of
misrepresentation or collusion - Petitioner
entitled to continue in service with salary
pending fresh adjudication by the Committee.
(Paras 9, 10, 12, 17)

Writ Petition Allowed - Order Dated
29.12.2023 Quashed, Matter Remitted for
Fresh
Consideration
-
Petitioner
to
Continue in Service with Salary.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Rakesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
24,178/- per month and terminal benefit
paid to Rs. 44,43,178/-. The above amount
is such which has been considered in the cases
referred to above and denial of compassionate
appointment has been held valid.

18. This Court is also of the view that while
deciding the application for appointment on
compassionate ground, Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of
the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment has to be taken into consideration in
letter and spirit. It is to be seen as to whether
terminal benefits is sufficient to meet liabilities of
family or not. In case authority is satisfied that
without providing appointment on compassionate
ground, family would not be in position to meet
the financial crisis, only then appointment may be
given to family member subject to fulfillment of
required qualification and eligibility, etc.

19. So far as present case is concerned,
family of deceased employee has received
sufficient money alongwith family pension to
meet the financial liabilities, therefore, there
is no occasion for this Court to interfere with
the impugned order dated 15.11.2017.
Respondents have rightly rejected the
application for grant of compassionate
appointment.

20. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit
and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 761
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 907 of 2024

Rakesh Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Regularization of Ad-hoc
Teacher - Procedural Fairness - Petitioner
challenged the rejection of his regularization
claim by the Regional Selection Committee,
which cited the conversion of a short-term
vacancy (1997) into a substantive vacancy
(2008) as the reason for denial - Held, the
Committee's order was based on incorrect facts,
as the vacancy arose due to the ad-hoc
promotion of another teacher, who was reverted
in 2003, and the cancellation of petitioner's
appointment in 2005 was quashed by the
Additional Director of Education in 2008 - The
Committee's failure to verify records or consult
relevant authorities rendered the order dated
29.12.2023 arbitrary and unsustainable - Matter
remitted for fresh consideration with directions
to verify records and involve the Committee of
Management and petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7,
16, 17)

B. Service Law - Duty of Regional
Selection Committee - Due Diligence - The
Regional Selection Committee acted negligently
by not verifying critical documents, including the
order
dated
5.12.2008,
and
relied
on
contradictory facts - Held, such committees
must thoroughly examine records, verify facts
with the Committee of Management and
Director of Education, and provide reasoned
findings
on
vacancy
existence,
candidate
eligibility, and approval status - Casual or
cursory orders affecting teachers' careers,
especially those serving for decades, are
impermissible and may warrant reprimand -
Director of Education directed to ensure
committees adhere to these principles. (Paras 6,
7, 8, 13, 14, 15)

C. Service Law - Protection of Ad-hoc
Teachers - Supreme Court Precedents -
Relying on *Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St. of
U.P.* and *Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B Vs Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare*, the court held that ad-hoc
teachers
serving
for
decades
cannot
be
terminated merely due to irregularities by the
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee of Management unless the teacher is
complicit
in
fraud
or
ineligible
-
Held,
petitioner's
appointment,
approved
and
continued for over two decades, cannot be
summarily
rejected
without
evidence
of
misrepresentation or collusion - Petitioner
entitled to continue in service with salary
pending fresh adjudication by the Committee.
(Paras 9, 10, 12, 17)

Writ Petition Allowed - Order Dated
29.12.2023 Quashed, Matter Remitted for
Fresh
Consideration
-
Petitioner
to
Continue in Service with Salary.

List of Cases cited:

1. Radhey Shyam Yadav & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., AIR 2024 SC 260

2. Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B & anr. Vs Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465 (AIR
2005 SC 1622)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned
counsel representing the petitioner, Sri J.N.
Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel
assisted by Sri R.S. Umrao, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-respondents and perused the
records.

2. Petitioner has questioned the order
dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent
no.2 - Regional Selection Committee
chaired by the present Regional Joint
Director
of
Education,
Secondary,
Prayagraj
rejecting
his
claim
for
regularization of the petitioner only on the
ground that short-term vacancy upon which
he was appointed in the year 1997, later on
got converted into a substantive vacancy in
the year 2008.

3. This Court earlier, however,
noticed this above reason and found to be
highly misplaced and, therefore, had
directed the Regional Joint Director of
Education, Secondary, Prayagraj as well as
the District Inspector of Schools concerned
to remain present today in the Court along
with their affidavits. Sri Sacchidanand
Yadav, who happens to be the District
Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi and Sri
Dibya Kant Shukla, the Regional Joint
Director
of
Education,
Secondary,
Prayagraj both are present. Both the
officers have filed their personal affidavits
in support of their application seeking
exemption from personal appearance and
have stated that as a matter of fact, the
earlier
Assistant
Teacher
Manmohan
Pandey upon whose ad-hoc promotion as a
Lecture (Sociology), the vacancy in L.T.
Grade had arisen on a short-term basis,
later on got reverted to the said position on
4.12.2003 and consequently the approval of
the appointment of the petitioner on that
short-term vacancy came to be cancelled on
30.9.2005. This stand taken in the affidavit
and the order annexed runs contrary to the
reason assigned in the order of the Regional
Selection Committee while refusing to
grant benefit of regularization to the
petitioner that the vacancy had became
substantive and so petitioner had no claim.
In the reason assigned in the order passed
by the Regional Selection Committee, it
has clearly come in black and white that the
said Manmohan Pandey had retired on
30.6.2008 while working as Lecturer
(Sociology) in the Institution. Thus, the
stand taken by the Regional Selection
Committee which was chaired by the
present
Regional
Joint
Director
of
Education, Secondary, Sri Dibya Kant
Shukla and of which Sacchidanand Yadav
was the ex-officio Secretary, is contrary to
this individual stand taken before the Court
in their affidavits by the officers present in
Court.
2 All. Rakesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763

4. Today, another order has been
placed before this Court by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner which
was passed by the Additional Director of
Education on behalf of the Direction of
Education (Secondary) on 5th December,
2008, whereby the order passed by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
dated
30.9.2005 was held to be erroneous and
illegal and was accordingly cancelled. It is
the order dated 30.9.2005 upon which the
affidavits filed today by Sri Dibya Kant
Shukla and by Sri Sacchidanand Yadav,
present in court, depend.

5. Upon a pointed query being made,
both the officers have shown their
ignorance of the order dated 5th December,
2008 and submit that this order was not
available in their records.

6. In the total circumspect of the case
as discussed above, it transpires that the
Regional Selection Committee did not
apply its mind to the correct facts available
on record, nor could even search out the
documents available in the Institution or in
the office of the District Inspector of
Schools. Sri Sacchidanand Yadav, who is
present in court, submits that earlier report,
which has been discussed by the Regional
Selection Committee was submitted by
earlier District Inspector of Schools and not
by him and, therefore, he can not say much
about the same.

7. It is unfortunate that the Regional
Selection Committee has proceeded in the
matter and passed order in a cursory
manner without completely looking into the
available records and without verifying its
correctness, in consultation with the
Committee of Management and the Office
of the Director of Education, Secondary.
This approach of the Regional Selection
Committee in passing orders is a casual one
and cannot be approved of.

8. This Court takes this to be a
solitary case to condone the arbitrary act at
the end of the present Regional Selection
Committee headed by the Regional Joint
Direction of Education, Secondary Sri
Dibya Kant Shukla and the present District
Inspector of Schools, Sri S.N. Yadav as its
Secretary and their conduct in accepting
mistake before the Court, but in future it is
expected that such Regional Selection
Committees will not play with the career of
such teachers who have been teaching in
the Institutions for more than two decades
and have been drawing salary. Orders
rejecting
regularization
would
have
adverse
civil
consequences
and,
therefore, not only the Regional Selection
Committees
are
required
to
have
seriously look into documents, but in the
event of any confusion regarding the
same, they may get it clarified from the
concerned Committee of Management,
the teacher concerned and also in
consultation with the office of the
Director of Education Secondary.

9. A teacher should not be axed
simply because the Management did
commit some irregularity unless and until
such a teacher is found to have colluded
with
the
management
in
securing
appointment for which he was not eligible
or
found
back
door
entry
to
the
disadvantage of others in matters of open
selection. In a recent judgment in the case
of Radhey Shyam Yadav and another Etc.
Vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2024 SC
260) decided on 3rd January, 2024,
Supreme Court relied upon its earlier
authority in the case of Chief Engineer,
M.S.E.B & Anr. Vs. Suresh Raghunath
Bhokare (2005) 10 SCC 465 (AIR 2005
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SC 1622), in which paragraph 5, it was
held thus:

"5. The entire basis of the
dismissal of the appellant depends upon the
factum of the alleged misrepresentation
attributed to the respondent. The Industrial
Court in its impugned order has noticed the
fact that the respondent was appointed in
April 1994 pursuant to the selection
procedure followed by the competent
authority and that he was selected by the
panel of Selection Committee consisting of
6 members which included the very same
Social Welfare Officer who had sent the
proposal including the name of the
respondent for appointment. It also noticed
the fact that the selection in question was
made after an oral interview and the
required
test
as
also
the
medical
examination. The Industrial Court also
noticed the fact that the appointment of the
respondent was confirmed after one-year
period and thereafter the respondent has
been working without any complaint. The
said Industrial Court also noticed the fact
that the termination of the respondent was
based on a showcause notice issued on 5-71999 which was replied to by the
respondent
on
17-7-1999
and
the
termination was made in a summary
procedure permissible under Rule 90(b) of
the Service Regulations.The Industrial
Court after perusing the pleadings and the
notice issued to the respondent came to the
conclusion
that
the
alleged
misrepresentation which is now said to be a
fraud was not specifically pleaded or
proved. In the show-cause notice, no basis
was laid to show what is the nature of fraud
that was being attributed to the appellant.
No particulars of the alleged fraud were
given and the said pleadings did not even
contain any allegation as to how the
appellant was responsible for sending the
so-called fraudulent proposal or what role
he had to play in such proposal being sent.
It also noticed from the evidence of Mr
Waghmare, Social Welfare Officer who
sent the proposal before the Labour Court
that he did not utter a single word as to
whether the said supplementary list was
ever
called
for
by
the
department
concerned or not. Thus applying the basic
principle of rule of evidence which requires
a party alleging fraud to give particulars of
the fraud and having found no such
particulars, the Industrial Court came to
the conclusion that the respondent could
not be held guilty of fraud. The said finding
of the Industrial Court has been accepted
by the High Court. Mr. Bhasme though
contended that the fraud in question was
played in collusion with the Social Welfare
Officer and 2 other employees of the Board
and action against the said 2 employees of
the Board has been taken, but by that itself
we are unable to accept the argument of
Mr. Bhasme that there is material to
support the contention of the Board that the
appellant had also contributed to making
the misrepresentation at the time of
applying for the job with the Board. In the
absence of any such particulars being
mentioned in the showcause notice or at the
trial, attributing some overt act to the
respondent, we do not think the Board can
infer that the respondent had a role to play
in sending a fraudulent list solely on the
basis of the presumption that since the
respondent got a job by the said proposal,
the said list is a fraudulent one. It was the
duty of the Board to have specifically
produced the material to prove that the
respondent himself had the knowledge of
such a fraud and he knowingly or in
collusion with other officials indulged in
this fraud. Since there is no such material
on record, on the facts of the instant case,
the Industrial Court and the High Court
2 All. Rakesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765
have come to the right conclusion that the
alleged fraud has not been established by
the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case
in which interference is called for. This
appeal, therefore, fails and the same is
dismissed." (emphasis added)

10. Thus, the Court took a view that if
the beneficiary is not liable to be charged
with any misrepresentation or any kind of
involvement in any conspiracy for securing
such appointment, such an employee
cannot be dismissed from service for such
irregularity in appointment. Once, the
appointment has been made and the
teachers have been made to continue for a
very long time like two decades or more,
now to fire them by one stroke of pen only
on
the
ground
that
Committee
of
Management was not fair enough in
holding selection, is not justifiable. It has
been held that if there is no cancellation of
appointment order or cancellation of
approval order then such teachers are liable
to be treated in service. The Court in that
case has also held vide paragraph 34 which
reads thus:

"34. We feel that the appellants
were not at fault and the State could not
have abruptly stopped their salaries.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgments of
the High Court dated 15.09.2021 in Special
Appeal Nos. 1435/2013 and 1445/2013 and
direct that the State shall pay the salaries
of the appellants for the period from
25.06.1999 till January, 2002 in full. We
also direct that insofar as the period from
October, 2005 till today is concerned, the
State shall pay the appellants 50% of the
backwages. Since the appointment order
and the approval order are still in force, we
declare that the appellants have always
been and are deemed to be in service.
Apart from 50% backwages, as ordered
above, we direct that all consequential
benefits,
including
seniority,
notional
promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and
other service benefits due, be granted to the
appellants. We direct the State to comply
with these directions within four weeks
from today. We also direct that the
appellants be allowed to commence work
within the said period of four weeks."

11.

Supreme
Court,
however,
permitted respondents to recover the
amount after holding management to be
guilty for such illegality/impropriety in
making appointments. Vide paragraph 35,
the Court held thus:

"35. We notice from the record
that the Committee of Management, Junior
High School, Bahorikpur was arrayed as
fifth respondent in the writ petition before
the High Court. They are also arrayed as
fifth respondent before us in these appeals.
Before us, even though notice has been
served on the Committee of Management,
Junior High School, Bahorikpur, nobody
has entered appearance. It appears that
even before the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench, the Committee of
Management did not appear. We grant
liberty to the State to issue a show-cause
notice to the Committee of Management (R5), after setting out clearly the charge
pertaining to the alleged manipulation of
the sanction order and altering of the
figure from two to three. After receiving
reply, if any, and after holding an inquiry
with an opportunity of personal hearing,
the State will be at liberty to pass an
appropriate order. In the event of the
Committee
of
Management
being
exonerated, no further question will arise.
In the event of them being found guilty of
the charge, in view of any finding that may
be arrived that the manipulation prior to
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the recruitment was done at the level of the
employees of the school (whether by
themselves or in collusion with the
officials), we grant liberty to the State to
recover
from
the
Committee
of
Management one-third of the arrears, as
ordered to be paid, hereinabove. This
direction will serve the ends of justice in
the matter."

12. In view of the above, such
teachers are held entitled to be paid salary
until their claim is finally rejected.

13. The Director of Education
(Secondary), Uttar Pradesh is directed to
ensure
that
the
Regional
Selection
Committees do not pass orders at their
whims negligently without looking into the
records and without verifying truthfulness
of the same.

14. In future, if such orders are passed
by any of the Regional Committees
constituted for the said purpose, such
orders will not only be unsustainable but
act of conduct of the authorities concerned
will also deserve reprimand.

15. The Director of Education
(Secondary) U.P. shall, therefore, ensure
that Regional Selection Committees while
rejecting claim of Ad-hoc teachers for
regularization must returned findings of
fact with reason broadly on following
points:

(i) Existence of vacancy on the
date of selection.

(ii)
Eligibility
of
candidate
selected on the date of selection.

(iii) Approval by the District
Inspector of Schools;

(iv) If approval under the orders
of this Court, justification for such
disapproval or withholding of approval
prior to intervention of Courts;

(v) Status of vacancy as on date;

16. In view of above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
by the Regional Selection Committed
headed by the Chairman namely the
Regional Joint Director of Education,
Prayagraj dated 29.12.2023 is, hereby,
quashed.

17. The matter is remitted to the
Regional Selection Committee to pass
orders afresh, after looking into and
verifying the entire records and after
verifying the order dated 5.12.2008 from
the office of the Direction of Education,
Secondary and also, if there is any
confusion, getting it clarified by issuing
notice to the Committee of Management
and the teacher concerned namely the
petitioner herein. Copy of the order dated
5.12.2008 has been supplied to the
Regional Joint Director of Education,
Secondary, who is present in the Court. The
appropriate orders now will be passed in
the next six weeks from today. The
petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to
continue in the service and shall be paid
salary without any further break.

18. The petitioner shall ensure that he
along with the Manager of the Committee
of
Management
appears
before
the
Regional Joint Director of Education on or
before 28.2.2024 and the Committee of
Management
shall
submit
the
entire
material available with it before the
Regional Joint Director of Education.

19. In the circumstances, the personal
appearance of the officers concerned stands
exempted. Notices issued to them stand
discharged.
2 All. Keshav Das Head Constable PNO-842580177 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767

20. Let this order be communicated to
the Director of Education (Secondary)
Prayagraj, U.P. by Registrar (Compliance)
within a week.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 767
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 3031 of 2021

Keshav
Das
Head
Constable
PNO842580177 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Maurya, Sri Manish Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- Procedural Irregularities - Petitioner, a
Head Constable, challenged his dismissal from
service
for
alleged
robbery,
arguing
procedural lapses in the disciplinary process
- Held, the disciplinary authority's reliance
on
a
preliminary
enquiry
to
justify
punishment, despite the enquiry officer's
finding that charges were not proved, was
untenable - Issuance of a second show
cause notice (10.06.2019) proposing a
harsher
penalty
(dismissal)
without
statutory backing under Rule 14 of the U.P.
Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and
without reasoned disagreement with the
enquiry
report,
rendered
the
process
arbitrary
-
Dismissal
order
dated
19.03.2020 and appellate/revisional orders
(20.08.2020,
30.12.2020)
quashed
for
violating procedural fairness. (Paras 14, 16,
17, 19, 20, 22, 32)
B. Service Law - Departmental Enquiry Vs
Criminal Trial - Impact of Acquittal -
Charges in the departmental enquiry mirrored
those in a criminal case (robbery under Section
392, 120B IPC), relying on the same evidence
and witnesses - Petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal trial (31.07.2023) with the court
disbelieving the complainant's evidence and
initiating proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
for false testimony - Held, where charges,
evidence, and witnesses are identical, and the
criminal court finds the prosecution's case
disproved,
allowing
contrary
findings
in
departmental
proceedings
is
unjust
and
oppressive, as per *G.M. Tank Vs St. of
Gujarat* - Enquiry officer's finding of unproven
charges further invalidated the disciplinary
authority's decision to impose punishment.
(Paras 7, 14, 18, 26, 28, 30)

C. Service Law - Scope of Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Proceedings - Courts under
Article 226 do not reappreciate evidence but can
intervene
if
the
disciplinary
process
is
procedurally flawed or arbitrary - Held, the
enquiry officer's recommendation of punishment
(reversion to basic pay) despite unproven
charges, and the disciplinary authority's reliance
on a preliminary enquiry without independent
reasons, constituted arbitrary exercise of
discretion
-
The
absence
of
statutory
provision for a second show cause notice to
escalate punishment, coupled with mechanical
affirmation by appellate/revisional authorities,
warranted interference - Matter remitted to
the disciplinary authority for reconsideration
based on the enquiry report. (Paras 10, 19,
23, 32, 34)

Writ Petition Allowed - Dismissal Order,
Appellate/Revisional Orders, and Show
Cause Notices Quashed - Matter Remitted
for Reconsideration.

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal
Nos.
7939-7940
of
2022
(decided
on
23.11.2022)

2. St. of U.P. Vs Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC
236