RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Kumar Singh for petitioner and Dr. R.G. Padia for respondent No. 6 assisted by Sri Anil Bhushan, I also heard learned Standing Counsel for other respondents.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that Sri Beer Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 6, the second senior most teacher in Sri Krishna Geeta Rashriya Inter College, Lalganj, Azamgarh, was considered for selection to the post of Principal of Sri Shanker Ji Inter College, Deeha, Azamgarh, in pursuance of advertisement issued in the year 1985-86, by the Secondary Education Services Selection Board, U.P. The appointment was challenged by Sri Chandra Bhan Pandey, Senior Most Teacher in the institution on the ground that he had a right to be regularised under Section 33-A (1-A) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. He filed Writ Petition No. 3569/1996 claiming a right to be regularised. The writ petition was disposed of on 11.12.1998 with direction to the Regional Director of Education to examine and decide the factual aspects of the case. In the operative portion of the order of this Court clarified, that in case the representation filed by the petitioner finds favour, the Regional Joint Director of Education, shall issue appropriate direction for and proper placement of the selected candidate in any other institution. The operative portion of the order is quoted as below :

(3.) The Joint Director by his order dated 28.2.2001 found that Sri Chandra Bhan Pandey was eligible and regularised him on the post of Principal of Sri Shanker Ji Inter College, Deeha, Azamgarh. With the regularisation of Sri Chandra Bhan Pandey, in pursuance of Section 33-A(1-A) inserted by U.P. Act No. 26/1991, the vacancy on the post of Principal of Sri Shanker Ji Inter College, Deeha, Azamgarh was filled up. The regularisation of service was deemed to have come into force from the date of commencement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 1991. There was, therefore, no vacancy on the post of Principal on the day when regularisation was made and thus the selection of respondent No. 6 could not be made by the Board. The last portion of the observation made by this Court in its order dated 11.12.1998 for placement of the selected candidate in any other institution, however, kept the matter live.