# Santosh Kumar Jain and another v. State of U.P. through Collector and another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 84
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-10-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10026 of 1987
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-jain-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-through-collector-and-another-39014
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Boards Act, 1982 as amended
by U.P. Act 19 of 1985- Sections 21-A to
21-D-Appointment
of
Petitioner
as
Assistant Teacher (BTC) by managerapproval by R.I.G.S.-Termination-held,
since there was no reserve candidate
and regard being had that 1982 Actcannot be invoked for appointment of
BTC Teacher and also in view of fact that
it has not been successfully established
that petitioner's appointment suffered
from
any
illegality-permeating
her
selection and appointment, apparent on
face
of
record,
termination-cannot
sustained.

Held- Para 5

In view of the fact that there was no
reserve pool candidate and upon regard
being had that U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Boards Act, 1982
cannot be invoked in aid for application
to appointment of B.T.C. Grade teacher
and also in view of the fact that it has
not been successfully established that
the appointment of petitioner suffered
from
any
illegality
permeating
her
selection and appointment apparent on
the fact of record, In converge to the
conclusion that the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in law and are liable
to be quashed.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
84
allotment for a factory was wholly illegal
and collusive. This case reveals totally
fraud and collusion on the part of the
petitioners. The petitioners encroached
illegally upon the land of the Aligarh
Development Authority and in collusion
with some officials of A.D.A. the
petitioners have no right to do the same.

22. Since total fraud has been
committed by the petitioners in illegally
occupying the land of the Aligarh
Development Authority, we impose a fine
of
Rs.1,00,000/-
(one
lac)
on
the
petitioners for having committed gross
illegality. The petitioners shall pay the
said amount to the Aligarh Development
Authority within two months from today
failing which it will be realized by the
D.M. as arrears of land revenue and then
paid to the respondent no. 2. Petitioners
must vacate the land in dispute forthwith
failing which they will be evicted by
Police force.

23. For the reasons given above, this
writ petition is dismissed and the interim
order is vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD OCTOBER 10, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10026 of 1987

Smt. Prakashwati

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajit Kumar
Sri S.N. Lal
Counsel for the Respondents :
S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Boards Act, 1982 as amended
by U.P. Act 19 of 1985- Sections 21-A to
21-D-Appointment
of
Petitioner
as
Assistant Teacher (BTC) by managerapproval by R.I.G.S.-Termination-held,
since there was no reserve candidate
and regard being had that 1982 Actcannot be invoked for appointment of
BTC Teacher and also in view of fact that
it has not been successfully established
that petitioner's appointment suffered
from
any
illegality-permeating
her
selection and appointment, apparent on
face
of
record,
termination-cannot
sustained.

Held- Para 5

In view of the fact that there was no
reserve pool candidate and upon regard
being had that U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Boards Act, 1982
cannot be invoked in aid for application
to appointment of B.T.C. Grade teacher
and also in view of the fact that it has
not been successfully established that
the appointment of petitioner suffered
from
any
illegality
permeating
her
selection and appointment apparent on
the fact of record, In converge to the
conclusion that the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in law and are liable
to be quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Petitioner in the instance case was
appointed as Assistant Teacher (BTC) in
Shri Krishak Kanya Uchhtar Madhyamic
Vidyaleya Bahanpur district Aligarh by
means of the order dated 25.2.1986 issued
under
the
authority
of
Manager.
Subsequently, the matter was referred for
approval to the Regional Inspectress of
Girls Schools and according to the
averments made in the writ petition, the
approval was accorded and the petitioner
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Santosh Kumar Jain and another V. State of U.P. through Collector and another
85
was paid salary for the period between
25.2.1986 and 20.5.1986. The payment of
salary was withheld thereafter and the
matter was again referred to the Regional
Inspectress of Girls Schools for approval
which was declined by means of an order
dated
24.2.1987.
Consequently,
the
services of the petitioner were also
terminated. In the above backdrop, the
present petition has been preferred for
twin reliefs of quashing the impugned
order dated 24.2.1987 passed by the
Regional Inspectress of Girls School and
the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the
Committee
of
Management
thereby
terminating the services of the petitioner.

2. It would appear from the perusal
of the record that the only ground which
prevailed with the Regional Inspectress of
Girls School in declining approval was
the provision contained in the U.P. Act
no. 19 of 1985 from which the aforesaid
authority
drew
inference
that
the
petitioner could not be appointed on
substantive post.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner canvassed that by the U.P. Act
no. 19 of 1985, amendment came to be
incorporated in U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 by
insertion of Sections 21 A to 21 D and as
a
consequence
of
this
amendment,
appointment
by
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Selection Boards Act,
1982 were put on hold till assimilation of
all the Reserve Pool Teachers is complete.
It is further canvassed that the order does
not spell out that any reserve pool teacher
in B.T.C. grade was ever appointed or any
list of such teachers had been prepared or
that they were queuing up for being given
regular appointment in terms of the
amendment incorporated by U.P. Act no.
19 of 1985. He lastly canvassed that the
order passed by the Regional Inspectress
of Girls Schools suffered from the vice of
arbitrainess and cannot be sustained in
law inasmuch as it was passed in oblivion
of the fact that the petitioner was a
regularly appointed B.T.C. teacher who
was entitled to salary and refusal to lend
approval
to
her
appointment
was
misconceived and consequent termination
of her services which was passed without
application of mind, cannot be sustained
in law. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel did not press into service any
argument of substance and made a thread
bare submission that the order was rightly
passed in accordance with law.

4. It brooks no dispute that the
petitioner was appointed as B.T.C. grade
teacher and it has not been repudiated that
she was appointed through the means of
regular selection by the Committee of
Management
after
following
due
procedure. There was no reserve pool
teacher awaiting their assimilation in
B.T.C.
grade
consequent
upon
amendment in U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 by
means of U.P. Act No. 19 of 1985. I have
scanned the relevant provisions of the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Boards
Act,
1982
on
consideration of which, it is manifestly
clear that the aforesaid Act has its
application
to
the
appointment
of
Principal/Head Master/Lecturer and L.T.
Grade Teachers and it does not operate in
relation to appointment in B.T.C. grade.

5. The learned Standing Counsel
argued that even if it be assumed that
there was no reserve pool teacher, the post
being vacant could be filled in by proper
selection. In vindication of his argument
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
86
that the selection made was illegal, the
learned
Standing
Counsel
has
not
adverted attention to any documentary
evidence to shore up his contention. On
the contrary it would transpire from
perusal of the impugned order refusing
approval that refusal was actuated by
Ordiance
2212
of
1985
and
in
quintessence, it follows from the said
order that refusal had its basis in the
provisions of U.P. Act no. 19 of 1985 and
the Regional Inspectress did not record
any other reason in relation to the validity
of the selection of the petitioner. In view
of the fact that there was no reserve pool
candidate and upon regard being had that
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Boards Act, 1982 cannot be
invoked
in
aid
for
application
to
appointment of B.T.C. Grade teacher and
also in view of the fact that it has not been
successfully
established
that
the
appointment of petitioner suffered from
any illegality permeating her selection
and appointment apparent on the fact of
record, In converge to the conclusion that
the impugned orders cannot be sustained
in law and are liable to be quashed.

6. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
24.2.1987 and 13.3.1987 passed by
respondents 2 and 3 respectively are
quashed and it is in consequence observed
that the petitioner shall be deemed to be
regularly appointed B.T.C. grade teacher.
It needs hardly be said that the Regional
Inspectress
of
Girls
School/District
Inspector of Schools concerned shall pass
appropriate orders to accord financial
approval in relation to the appointment of
the petitioner and she shall be paid salary
from the date of her initial appointment
upto the period she actually worked, in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 26.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16596 of 1999

Vishun Dayal

...Petitioner
Versus
District Registrar, Mainpur ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Govind Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 16-
A. Service Law-Appointment-on adhoc
basis
or
as
daily
wager-without
following procedure prescribed by law
held violation of article 13 and 16 of
Constitution-such
practice
highly
depreciated by such appointments-made
on extraneous consideration to oust the
meritorious
candidates-cant
not
be
regularized.

Held: Para 9

Adhoc appointment or on daily wages,
without following the procedure also
violates the Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as such appointment are
made
on
extraneous
consideration,
which oust the meritorious and the
eligible candidates. The amounts to back
door
entry
and
the
courts
have
deprecated such practice.

B. Service Law-Regularisation-petitioner
appinted temporarily-under particular
scheme-has no enforceable right for
regularization.

Held: Para 7