SABHAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner quashing of the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools based on recommendation dated 04.12.2008 passed by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad qua the post of Principal of K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur. Brief background of the case is that selection proceedings were undertaken for the post of Principal and in the said selection proceedings so undertaken petitioner's claim was also considered by virtue of petitioner being senior most teacher in the institution. In the said selection proceedings Pramod Kumar Singh has also applied for consideration of his claim and thereafter proceedings in question have been finalized. Pramod Kumar Singh, has been selected on the post of Principal of K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that Pramod Kumar Singh has never applied for consideration of his claim for being appointed as Principal of K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur, as such he cannot be recommended to be appointed as Principal of the aforementioned institution and coupled with this petitioner is functioning as adhoc Principal and his claim for regularisation is pending for consideration, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. Countering said submission, Sri R.K. Singh Kaushik as well as Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate contended that petitioner has already taken his chance and on merit Pramod Kumar Singh has rightly been recommended and as far as claim of regularisation is concerned same cannot be accorded as no provision has been incorporated under U.P. Act No. V of 1982 as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn as on date liable to be is dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced first question to be adverted to is as to whether Pramod Kumar Singh could have been recommended for the post of Principal or not at K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur. This fact has not been disputed that candidature of petitioner has also been considered for the post of Principal recommended by virtue of being senior most teacher and merit status which had emerged as per the same merit status of petitioner is much inferior to the merit status of Pramod Kumar Singh. Said Pramod Kumar Singh has given choice of other institutions. In case said institution has already been given to candidate with superior merit then said Pramod Kumar Singh was liable to be recommended in other institution which has been notified and advertised. K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur had also been notified and advertised, in this background once merit status of Pramod Kumar Singh is superior to the merit status of petitioner then U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad is not at all in error in recommending the name Pramod Kumar Singh for being appointed as Principal of K.N. Krishak Inter College, Uchauri District Gahzipur and petitioner will have to make way for Pramod Kumar Singh. Now second question qua the recommendation made for extending the benefit of regularisation to ad hoc Principals, it would be relevant to mention that meeting has been convened on 26.06.2007 wherein Director of Education and Principal of Pradhancharya Parisad had participated and therein resolution was passed that except for institution wherein selection proceedings has been undertaken, for rest of the institution as per provision as contained, under U.P. Act No. II of 1921 proceedings for regularization be considered and for the same Director of Education Secondary alongwith requisite resolution shall transmit the matter to the State Government and pursuant to the said resolution passed details were to be furnished to the State Government. Thereafter it appears that letter was written by the District Inspector of Schools asking for full particulars in this regard. It appears that thereafter requisite particular have been furnished and as State Government has not taken any decision in respect of extending the benefit of regularization. Prayer has been made to regularize the petitioner on the post of Principal as per Government Policy. In the present case merely because proposal is in pipe line same does not ipso facto mean that petitioner has got crystallized right for consideration of his claim for regularization. Even the said resolution talked of regularisation in terms of provision of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and not beyond the same. Section 16 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 clearly provides that appointment made in contravention of provision of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 shall be void. Petitioner is claiming his regularization on the post of Principal under U.P. Act No. V of 1982. Till date there is no statutory provision for extending the benefit of regularization to adhoc Principals who have been appointed after 30.06.2006 and in the absence of any statutory provision no direction can be issued for regularization of petitioner on the post of Principal as per Government Policy, inasmuch as said policy is of no consequence unless and until statutory amendment is incorporated in U.P. Act No. V of 1982 in the same way and manner as Sections 33(i-A),(i- B) (i-C), 33-B, 33-C, 33-D, 33-E and 33-F have been incorporated. This Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Bansal Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20920 of 2009) decided on 20.04.2009 has taken similar view. Consequently in the facts of the case as on date no relief can be accorded to the petitioner, as such writ Petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.