DHARM NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The petitioner was initially appointed as lecturer in sociology in the university under the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 11th March, 1980 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of three months. Although the appointment was made for a period of three months but the same was continued till 31st July, 1983. In the session 1979-80 the university made an advertisement for the selection of lecturer in sociology. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement and appeared before the selection committee on 13th April, 1981. Selection committee selected three other persons on 26th September, 1982. The name of the petitioner was placed under serial No. 4 with the recommendation that in any case vacancy found, the petitioner may be given appointment. However, no such situation arose. Again on 26th September, 1982 another advertisement was made to fill up the post of temporary lecturer in Economics, Sociology, English, Hindi, Philosophy and History. Again selection was made on 31st July, 1983 and the petitioner was placed under serial No. 2. One Dr. Girja Prasad Dubey, who was the second empanelled candidate in the earlier selection now become first and appointment was given accordingly. The petitioner was given appointment in the post of temporary lecturer in the evening classes of the Institution. The appointment letter was given on 31st July, 1983. However, on 30th June, 1987 the university decided not to continue the evening classes and accordingly a decision was taken. However, the petitioner was retained to continue till 30th June, 1988. The service of the rest of the teachers were terminated.

(2.) THE petitioner was again appointed on 6th August, 1988 to continue upto 31st August, 1988. In further he was appointed on 9th August, 1988 and was asked to continue. THE petitioner continued till March, 1989. On 5th February, 1990, the petitioner was given an adjustment against the leave vacancy caused due to the long leave of Dr. N. S. Deshpandey. On 21st March, 1991 the petitioner was again appointed which was continued till 31st March, 1991. On 30th May, 1991 in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a direction was given by the Court upon the authorities in case further appointment for the post in question is to be made, the petitioner's case also be considered by the appropriate respondents giving preference to his seniority and suitability. Petitioner contended that one Dr. R. P. Singh was similarly placed who, filed a writ petition and obtained an order under which the Executive Council of the University was directed to consider the case having requisite qualifications. According to the petitioner, on 18th January, 1990 the petitioner was appointed with regular pay scale against the leave vacancy caused due to long leave of Sri Sohan Ram Yadav which was extended and on 20th April, 1993, the petitioner was finally absorbed as a lecturer against the vacancy occurred due to promotion of one Dr. Shyamdhar Singh. It was further contended that pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in connection with regularization of service of the teachers appointed for the evening classes, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice A. N. Verma and decided to regularize the services of the teachers in various departments working in the temporary capacity for the evening classes.

(3.) IN reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner was appointed on 11th March, 1988 under Section 13 (6) (8) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and continued with artificial breaks till 31st July, 1993. The question of sanctioned vacancy is not relevant for the controversy involved in the present writ petition. He further stated that in the evening classes the petitioner was duly appointed and was approved by the selection committee and the Executive Council both. It is true to say that petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 1,000/- vide order dated 31st July, 1983. Only two artificial breaks are there. Firstly 1st January, 1991 to 25th January, 1991 about 24 days and again from 1st December, 1991 to 15th December, 1991 for 14 days. The cause of the petitioner stands on better footing than Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh alias Dr. R. P. Singh. Petitioner's service was continued with the due sanction of the respondent. He is well qualified. The petitioner's only claim is that like Dr. R. P. Singh he may also be allowed to get benefit for the period in which he had rendered service in evening classes. To substantiate the cause that the petitioner is on the better footing, he contended that till 30th June, 1987 when the evening classes were abolished, the petitioner was temporarily appointed by the Executive Council with artificial breaks. Dr. R. P. Singh was never in the employment after the closure of the evening classes. Since the petitioner filed a representation as against the decision of the University dated 12th May, 2004 it cannot be said that petitioner never raised any objection. Moreover the appeal of the petitioner was not rejected on merit.