CHANDRABHAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The petitioners have been appointed as Supervisors in the year 1982 and 1983 respectively in the Social Welfare Department. By the letters dated 04.04.2008 and 27.10.2008 written by the Secretary, Government of U. P. to Principal Secretaries/Head of various departments of Uttar Pradesh applications were invited from those employees, who were willing for the post of District Minority Welfare Officer in the Minority Welfare Department temporarily on transfer of service basis. The petitioners applied for the aforesaid post. By the order of Principal Secretary, dated 27.07.2009, annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioners have been appointed as District Minority Welfare Officer temporarily on transfer of service basis for the period of one year or till the selection of regular candidate by the Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. By the order dated 04.09.2009, the petitioner no.1 was posted at J.P.Nagar and petitioner no.2 has been posted at Moradabad. It appears that the engagement of the petitioners have been extended time to time and now the period of three years have been expired on 31.03.2013. The last extension upto 31.03.2013 was given by Government Order dated 19.10.2012. By the impugned Government Order dated 31.05.2013, the Government has declined to extend the period of deputation on the ground that there is no reason to extend the period of deputation and has sent back the petitioners to their parent department. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that till date no regular appointment has been made by Public Service Commission. The appointment of the petitioners were for the period of one year or till the date of regular appointment by the Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier and as such it should be read as the appointment till the date the regular appointment is made by the Public Service Commission. He submitted that almost in a similar situation while interpreting Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Sanatan Dharm Intermediate College, Daulatpur, district Mainpuri Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and another, 1985 UPLBEC 496 has held that intention of Legislature was that a teacher once appointed on adhoc basis should continue in the post so long a regular incumbent is not selected by the Commission. It is observed that it is apt to create anomalous situation which may neither be beneficial to teachers nor the institution. For instance suppose an appointment after formalities that is advertisement and selection is made, as the Section 18 permits even direct appointment in January it shall come to an end on 30th June automatically if no candidate from Commission is recommended. In July advertise afresh and make appointments. This could not have been the intention nor it is conducive to the system. The said decision has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiva Chandra Misra and others Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, 1986 UPLBEC, 1986 UPLBEC 248.