Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos. 7532-7533 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.17450-17451 of 2017)

C/M Kisan Inter College Manager .... Appellant(s)

versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The regularization of the service of Respondent No.5-

Shri  Ram  Mani  Pandey  as  L.T.  Grade  Teacher  in  the

Appellant-College  is  the  subject  matter  of  the  above

Appeals.   

2. The  Appellant-College  is  an  aided  College  which  is

recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh.  The post of L.T.

Grade  Assistant  Teacher  (Maths)  fell  vacant  due  to  the

promotion of           Shri Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer

(Civics)  from  L.T.  Grade  Assistant  Teacher.   Respondent

No.5  was  appointed  as  L.T.  Grade  Assistant  Teacher  on

1 | P a g e

31.12.1984  in  the  resultant  vacancy  caused  by  the

promotion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak.  The appointment of

Respondent No.5 as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher was not

approved  as  the  procedure  prescribed  under  the  U.P.

Secondary  Education  Services  Selection  Board  Act,  1982

and the Rules framed thereunder was not followed.  The

College stopped payment of salary to Respondent No.5 in

July,  1985.   Writ  Petition  No.18046  of  1985  filed  by

Respondent  No.5  seeking  continuance  of  service  and

payment of salary was disposed of by the High Court on

22.11.1985 with a direction to pay salary to Respondent

No.5.  Respondent  No.5  was  permitted  to  continue  till  a

regular  teacher was appointed.   Shri Hari Prasad Pathak

was sought to be reverted from the post of Lecturer (Civics)

as L.T.  Grade Assistant  Teacher  in  view of  his  promotion

being found irregular.  Respondent No.5 filed a Writ Petition

No.2775  of  1986  challenging  the  reversion  of  Shri  Hari

Prasad  Pathak.    The  High  Court  by  an  order  dated

22.11.1985 dismissed Writ  Petition No.2775 of 1986 filed

by Respondent No.5 questioning the reversion of Shri Hari

Prasad Pathak on the ground that he does not have locus

2 | P a g e

standi.   Thereafter,  the  Appellant  informed  Respondent

No.5 on 29.07.1988 to join and start working on the post of

L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher.     

3. The advertisement issued by the Board for filling up

the post of Lecturer (Civics) on 14.10.1988 was challenged

by         Shri Hari Prasad Pathak in Writ Petition No.30808 of

1992.   The  High  Court  directed  continuance  of  Sri  Hari

Prasad Pathak in  the post  of  Lecturer  (Civics)  till  further

orders.  Yet another advertisement was issued for filling up

the  post  of  Lecturer  (Civics)  was  subject  matter  of  Writ

Petition No.2044 of 1992 filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak.

By an Order dated 14.10.1992, the High Court stayed the

selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in

1992.   The  third  attempt  to  fill  up  the  post  of  Lecturer

(Civics) was  challenged in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995

filed  by  Shri  Hari  Prasad  Pathak  and  Respondent  No.5.

The High Court  granted an interim order  in  Writ  Petition

No.19691 of  1995 on  24.07.1995 and  directed  that  Shri

Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No.5 may be permitted

to  continue  in  their  respective  posts  till  further  orders.

Pursuant  to  the  order,  Shri  Hari  Prasad  Pathak  and

3 | P a g e

Respondent No.5 were permitted to discharge their duties

as  Lecturer  (Civics)  and  L.T.  Grade  Assistant  Teacher

respectively till 2008.  They were also paid salary for the

said period.  On 28.11.2008, Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was

regularized  on  the  post  of  Lecturer  (Civics)  w.e.f.

07.10.1983.   The  District  Inspector  of  Schools  (for  short

“the  DIOS”)  by  an  order  dated  16.06.2009  directed  the

payment of arrears of salary to  the 5th Respondent from

01.01.1985.  As the Appellant objected to the payment of

salary to Respondent No.5,  an enquiry was conducted in

which it was found that Respondent No.5 had been working

continuously  as  L.T.  Grade  Assistant  Teacher  from

01.01.1985 and the Order dated 16.06.2009 of the DIOS,

Basti was found to have been properly issued.

4. Writ  Petition  No.19691  of  1995  filed  by  Shri  Hari

Prasad  Pathak  and  Respondent  No.5  challenging  the

advertisement dated 19.06.1995 for filling up the post of

Lecturer  (Civil)  was  disposed of  by  the  High  Court  by  a

judgment dated 31.03.2010.  The High Court took notice of

the fact of regularization of the services of Shri Hari Prasad

Pathak as Lecturer (Civics)  w.e.f. 07.10.1983. Respondent

4 | P a g e

No.5  was  permitted  to  file  a  representation  for

regularization of his service as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher.

The High Court permitted Respondent No.5 to continue in

service  till  a  decision  is  taken  on  his  request  for

regularization.  The request made by Respondent No.5 for

regularization  was  accepted  by  the  Regional  Level

Committee,  Basti.   By  an  order  dated  31.07.2010,  the

Regional Level Committee held that Respondent No.5 was

appointed on 01.01.1985 as L.T.  Grade Assistant Teacher

and he continued to work in the said capacity since then.

The regularization of the services of Respondent No.5 was

challenged by the Appellant in  Writ Petition No.50312 of

2010.  The judgment of the High Court dated 31.03.2010 in

Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 directing the consideration

of regularization was challenged by the Appellant by filing

Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad

High Court.  

5. In  the  meanwhile,  the  Appellant  initially  suspended

Respondent No.5 on 28.08.2010 and later terminated his

services  on  some  allegations.    The  said  order  of

termination was disapproved by the Selection Board which

5 | P a g e

directed                      re-instatement of Respondent No.5 in

service by an Order dated 16.02.2013.  As the Appellant

was  not  complying  with  the  direction  of  the  Selection

Board, Respondent No.5 filed a Writ Petition No.24051 of

2013 seeking direction to the Appellant to take him back.  

6. The learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court

heard all the Writ Petitions together.  Writ Petition No.50312

of 2010 filed by the Appellant assailing the regularization

order  in  favour  of  Respondent  No.5  was  allowed.   Writ

Petition  No.24051  of  2013  filed  by  Respondent  No.5

seeking  a  direction  to  permit  him to  join  was  dismissed

along with Writ Petition Nos. 18046 of 1985, 2775 of 1989

and 22891 of 1989 filed by Respondent No.5.  

7. Respondent No.5 filed four Special Appeals against the

judgment  of  the  learned  single  Judge.   Special  Appeal

No.1297 of  2013 was filed  against  the judgment  in  Writ

Petition  No.24051  of  2013  pertaining  to  the  permission

granted  to  Respondent  No.5  to  resume  his  duties  in

compliance of  the  Order  passed by the Selection Board.

Writ  Petition No.18046 of 1985 filed by Respondent No.5

6 | P a g e

related to the claim of continuity of service and payment of

salary.  Special Appeal No.1289 of 2013 was filed against

the dismissal of the said Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985.

Another connected Writ Petition No.22891 of 1989 relating

to  the  payment  of  salary  and  arrears  was  the  subject

matter  of  challenge  in  Special  Appeal  1299  of  2013.

Special  Appeal  No.1300  of  2013  was  filed  against  the

judgment in Writ  Petition No.50312 of 2010 in which the

regularization of Respondent No.5 was challenged by the

Appellant.  The Special Appeals filed by Respondent No.5

were  allowed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.

Review Applications filed by the Appellant were dismissed.

Therefore, these appeals.  

8. An  interim  order  was  passed  by  this  Court  on

09.03.2018  staying  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High

Court  due  to  which  Respondent  No.5  was  not  paid  his

salary.  During the pendency of these Appeals, Respondent

No.5 attained the age of superannuation in March 2019.   

9. The  crucial  point  to  be  considered  is  whether

Respondent No.5 worked between 1984 to 1995 for being

7 | P a g e

eligible to be considered for regularization.  The Appellant

contended  that  Respondent  No.5  did  not  discharge  his

duties as L.T. Grade Teacher during that period.  A detailed

enquiry  that  was  conducted  by  the  DIOS,  Basti  was  in

favour of Respondent No.5 in which it was found that he

worked  continuously  from  01.01.1985.   The  services  of

Respondent No.5 were regularized on the basis of the said

enquiry  report.   There  is  no  reason  to  differ  with  the

findings  of  the  High  Court  that  the  5th respondent  was

eligible  for  regularization as  per  the provisions  of   Uttar

Pradesh  Secondary  Education  Services  Commission  Act,

1982.   The Appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the

claim of Respondent No.5 that he had actually served in

the School  during the disputed period  i.e. between 1984

and 1995.

10. Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was regularized in the post of

Lecturer (Civics) on 28.11.2008  w.e.f. 07.10.1983.  There is

no dispute about the existence of a regular vacancy in the

post  of  L.T.  Grade  Teacher  thereafter.   The  order  of

regularization  of  the  service  of  Respondent  No.5  was

wrongly  set  aside  by  the  learned  single  Judge  without

8 | P a g e

taking  into  account  the  impact  of  the  Order  dated

31.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.196191 of 1995.  In the said

Order, the High Court held that the claim for regularization

of Respondent No.5 has to be considered by the Regional

Level Committee.  The order of regularization was passed

after taking into account all relevant material.  By taking

note of the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated

06.05.2009,  the  Division  Bench  directed  continuation  of

Respondent No.5 in service with all consequential benefits.

In view of the conflicting claim relating to service rendered

by Respondent No.5 between 1985 and 1995, the stand of

the  Government  assumes  importance.   The  counter

affidavit filed by the Government indicates that there were

endorsements made by the Appellant itself by letters dated

29.07.1988  and  17.04.2009  that  Respondent  No.5  had

continued in the service since 1985.  That apart, the clear

stand of the Government is in favour of Respondent No.5.

The relief granted to Respondent No.5 is dependent upon

the  service  rendered  by  him  for  a  period  of  10  years

between  1985  to  1995  to  enable  him  to  claim

regularization  according  to  Uttar  Pradesh  Secondary

9 | P a g e

Education Services Commission Act, 1982.  In view of the

enquiry report dated 06.05.2009 and the endorsement of

the  Management  in  their  letters  dated  29.07.1988  and

17.04.2009, it is clear that Respondent No.5 had actually

worked during 1985 to 1995 and he was eligible for being

considered for regularization of his      service as LT Grade

Teacher.  The order of regularization dated 31.07.2010 was

rightly upheld by the Division Bench.   

11. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  we  see  no  error

committed  by  the  High  Court.   The  Appeal(s)  are

accordingly dismissed.       

             .. …................................J.

                                                                  [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                                        .. …….............................J.

                                                               [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, October 04,  2019.

10 | P a g e