Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Smt.Rita Swaroop Nigam And Others vs State Of U.P. on 3 August, 2010

                                                                             Court No.22
                            Writ Petition No.1310 (SS) of 1993
Smt. Rita Swarup Nigam and another                                       ... Petitioners
State of U.P. and others                                                 ... Respondents
Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioners may be
regularised on the posts on which they are working.

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that two posts of Lecturer fell
vacant due to retirement of regular incumbents of the posts, namely, Dr. J.K. Singh,
Lecturer in Chemistry and Mr. L.N. Tewari, Lecturer in English and after both the
vacancies fell vacant, the committee of management proceeded to appoint the
petitioners vide order dated 8.7.1992 on ad hoc basis against the aforesaid two
vacancies. After the appointment of the petitioners, Ordinance No.21 of 1992 was
passed by the State Government and the DIOS exercising the power under the
aforesaid Ordinance, proceeded to appoint two ad hoc Lecturers and the said order
was challenged before this Court by way of this petition. Initially, an interim order
was granted by this Court on 11.2.1993, but subsequently the said interim order was
vacated and ultimately on 8.12.1995 an interim order was passed to the following

” List again in the second week of January, 1996. Till further
orders of this Court, the petitioners shall not be disturbed with the
teaching and they shall continue to work.”

After passing of the interim order the petitioners continued to work and they
are continuing up till now. The petitioners were appointed on 8.7.1992. The
petitioners have filed the present writ petition for regularising their services as
contemplated under Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection
Board Act (for short ‘the Act’).

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 33-C of the
Act was introduced w.e.f. 20.4.1998. The petitioners thereafter approached the
opposite parties for regularising their services under the aforesaid provision, but the
case of the petitioners has not been considered although they are working since the
date of their appointment and continuously receiving the salary from the State

Sri Anurag Srivastava, has moved an impleadment application on behalf of

certain candidates and he has sought impleadment in the present petition. He
submits that the case of the selected candidates in the year 2005 on the post of
Lecturers against the aforesaid vacancies has to be given precedence as against the
posts held by the petitioners.

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid legal position as
the right of the petitioners has emanated under Section 33-C of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working in the institution w.e.f.
8.7.1992 and their salary was being paid from the Sate exchequer in pursuance to
the interim order of this Court. Looking to the language implied in Section 33-C of
the Act the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid provision. The cut
off date under the aforesaid Section is 6.8.1992 and the petitioners have admittedly
been appointed before the cut off date and, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit
of the aforesaid provision. The ad hoc Lecturers, who were appointed by the DIOS
have been adjusted in some other institution as informed by the counsel for the
petitioners. So far the claim of intervening Lecturers is concerned, their claim
cannot be given precedence over the claim of the petitioners as the petitioners are to
be regularised against the vacancies on which they are working, whereas the
inteveners can be adjusted in the said institution against the existing vacancies and,
therefore, their claim will not be affected in any manner by considering the
regularisation of the petitioners.

This writ petition is pending since 1993 and due to pendency of this petition
the petitioners’ case has been refused to be considered by the opposite parties.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of finally with the
direction that the opposite parties will consider the case of the petitioners for
regularisation as contemplated under Section 33-C of the Act within a period of two
months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. The
arrears of salary, if any, shall be paid to the petitioners looking to their work on the
post in question.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.164 seconds.