- (1.) Heard Sri Utkarsh Birla learned counsel holding brief of Sri Siddhartha Khare for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Tandon learned Brief Holder for the State respondents, Sri S.K. Mishra who appears for the respondent No. 9 and Sri Anoop Kumar learned counsel holding brief of Sri K. Shahi for the Board.
(2.) The petition challenges an order of 08 February 2013 passed by the Board annulling the selection of the petitioner here as a Lecturer in Physics. Undisputedly the petitioner was selected by the Board as Lecturer Physics and accorded placement at Sri Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College a recognised and aided institution governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921. Respondent No.9 was also selected by the Board as a Lecturer and placed at Mahendra Technical Inter College Chanduali. It is alleged that the management of that institution did not permit the ninth respondent to join. It is this which appears to have moved him to petition the respondents to allot another institution. In the meanwhile and pursuant to the recommendation made by the Board and the provisions of Rule 13 as made in the 1998 Rules, the petitioner here was issued an order of appointment by the Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College on 21 August 2012. Pursuant to that order, he joined the institution and proceeded to commence his assignment. It is averred that he was also paid salary from month to month thereafter. Respondent No. 9 in the meanwhile preferred Writ-A No. 47882 of 2012 seeking the issuance of a direction commanding the Board to accord him adjustment in some other institution. That petition came to be disposed of on 18 September 2012 in the following terms;- "Issue raised in the present writ petition has already been answered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43852 of 2012 (Praveen Chanchal Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 03.09.2012 wherein this Court has proceeded to pass detailed judgment. Operative portion of the judgment is being extracted below: "Once such is the factual situation that selected candidates are made to suffer then in such a situation, in such matter two tier exercise is required to be undertaken. At the first instance, application is to be moved before the Regional Joint Director of Education of the Region concerned, who will proceed to exercise authority under Section 17 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 as far as may be within one month by ensuring joining of selected candidate, and if due to non-availability of vacancy or for any other reason joining could not be ensured then District Inspector of Schools be asked to recommend the matter to Selection Board, for passing orders under Rule 13(5) of 1998 Rules, keeping in view the dictum of this Court in the case of Raja Ram (supra) and the Regional Joint Director of Education, in addition to it when he finds in enquiry that there does not exist vacancy, whereas vacancy in question has actually been notified/verified, and said exercise has been undertaken by the Managing Committee and verified by the District Inspector of Schools, then qua these two agencies, action be recommended and taken in accordance with law. In the second phase, Selection Board, after receiving the recommendation under Rule 13(5) shall proceed to take exercise for adjustment against the vacancy notified and advertised and clarified in the case of Raja Ram (supra) within six weeks from the date of recommendation by Inspector. With the above observations and directions present writ petition is disposed of. Copy of the judgement be forwarded to Director of Education (Secondary) for further follow up action in accordance with law."
(3.) Consequently present writ petition is also disposed of on the same term as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43852 of 2012 (Praveen Chanchal Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 03.09.2012." In Praveen Chanchal the procedure to be adopted in situations like the present was explained as follows:- "Section 17 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982, provides forum to an incumbent, who is entitled to be appointed as teacher in institution, but he/she is not appointed by the Management, within the time frame provided for, then he can apply to the Director of Education or any Officer, authorised by him for a direction under Sub-Section (2) of Section 17. On receipt of application, enquiry is to be held, and if satisfaction is recorded that Management has failed to appoint, in contravention of the provision of the Act, then directives can be issued to appoint him/her forthwith and to pay salary from the date specified and the Head of the institution to take work. Salary due can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. ;