AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Tandon, J.
Writ Petition No. 39754 of 1997
Petitioner before this Court had filed Writ Petition No. 16481 of 1991 alleging therein that she has been appointed by the management against a permanent vacancy on ad hoc basis and that her salary has wrongly been stopped. The claim was contested by the Respondents and it was stated that the Petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy caused due to grant of leave to one Madhu Raizada. It was further stated that the vacancy stood converted into a permanent vacancy. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Meena Singh v. District Inspector of Schools; 1994(3) UPLBEC 1953 the question of continuance of the Petitioner does not arise. The Hon''ble Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter needs to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools concerned at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 05.05.1995 requiring the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to consider the grievance of the Petitioner.
The matter was accordingly examined by the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra. He in his order dated 09.10.1997 has recorded that the leave vacancy, against which the Petitioner was appointed, came to an end on 20.05.1989 when Madhu Raizada was made permanent as Assistant Teacher in Government College. It has then been recorded that the post actually remained vacant between 1989 to 1995. The Petitioner made a representation only in the year 1991. Therefore, it has been held that the Petitioner had no case either for regularization or for being continued in the institution on the strength of her earlier order. Hence this second writ petition.
Challenging the order dated 09.10.1997 counsel for the Petitioner refers to the U.P. Government Servant (Employment Leave) Rules, 2003 in support of his contention that since the leave was extended for the period of more than 5 years by Madhu Raizada, the Petitioner is deemed to have become permanent as per the said rules.
In the opinion of the Court, Rules, 2003 are not applicable on two grounds i. e. (a) the rules apply to the Government Servants only, while the Petitioner was appointed in a recognized private Intermediate College as an Assistant Teacher. The services of Assistant Teachers of a recognized Intermediate College are regulated under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder as also under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the rules and regulations framed therein. (b) the rules are of the year 2003 when the services of the Petitioner were put to an end in the year 1991 itself.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the contentions so raised on behalf of the Petitioner have absolutely no substance.
Counsel for the Petitioner then refers to Section 33B of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 for the proposition that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the said section and she has become entitled for regularization once the vacancy has become substantive.
From the facts on record it is apparently clear that Section 33B was added by Act No. 1 of 1993. The leave vacancy, against which the Petitioner was working, became substantive in the year 1989. As already noticed above, the post remained vacant between 1989 to 1995. The Petitioner was not actually working on the relevant date and therefore Section 33B has no application.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 2680 of 1997
This connected petition, being Writ Petition No. 2680 of 1997, has been filed by Smt. Meenakshi and it is claimed that she was appointed for the first time on 30.09.1995 against the leave vacancy of Madhu Raizada, as she had not resigned from the post even after confirmation as assistant teacher in Government College.
The contention so raised is misconceived. As already noticed above, the Deputy Director of Education has found that the vacancy became substantive as early as in the year 1989, inasmuch as Madhu Raizada was appointed in a Government College and confirmed therein in the year 1989.
Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the appointment offered to Smt. Meenakshi in the year 1995 against substantive vacancy, treating the same as leave vacancy, was totally misconceived. Against a substantive vacancy Committee of Management had no right to make ad hoc appointment. It is only for justifying the illegal appointment that a stand has been taken that the vacancy caused in the institution due to leave granted to Madhu Raizada continued to be short term as she had not resigned.
I am of the considered opinion that Km. Madhu Raizada had lost lien from the date when she was confirmed as teacher in the Government College and on the said date itself the vacancy became substantive.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
This order has been passed by the Court on the re-constructed files. However, if the original files are found out, the order shall be placed on the records of the original files.