Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.
(2.) DESPITE time having been allowed, the State respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Undisputed facts are that one post of Assistant Teacher in LT grade fell substantively vacant in 1992 in Dayanand Inter College, Gorakhpur which is duly aided and recognized institution governed by the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act no. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The said vacancy was duly requisitioned to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board through the District Inspector of Schools. However, when no appointment was recommended by the Service Selection Board the District Inspector of Schools notified the same for making ad hoc appointment after following the procedure prescribed. The petitioner was selected and his name was recommended by the District Selection Committee for appointment in the institution on 23.12.1992. The District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 23.12.1992 notified the management to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days. However, when the management did not issue any appointment letter to the petitioner nor allowed him to join the post, another reminder dated 2.2.1993 was again issued by the District Inspector of Schools requiring the management to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and to permit him to join the post within one week. Despite repeated reminders by the District Inspector of Schools, when the committee of management failed to take any steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. NIL of 1993 (Ramesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others). Vide order dated 2.9.1993 an interim direction was issued commanding the committee of management to permit the petitioner to join the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade and to pay current salary. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to join on 10.1.1994. The petitioner continued as ad hoc LT grade teacher in the institution and was continuously being paid salary. U.P. Act no. V of 1982 came into force with effect from 20.4.1998 by introducing certain amendments including Section 33 -C providing for regularization of certain appointments. The said section is quoted hereunder : 33 -C. Regularisation of certain more appointments. - (1) Any teacher who - (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or the Trained Graduate grade.; (ii) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Head Master in accordance with Section 18; (b) possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub -section (2); shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising, - (i) Regional Joint Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) who shall be member; (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) who shall be a member. In addition to above members, the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be co -opted as member while considering the cases for regularisation of that district. (b) The Procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub -section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (4) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub -section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub -section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub -section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify; (6) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Ordinance referred to in clause (c) of sub -section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act.
(3.) A bare reading of Section 33 -C of the Act goes to to show that all ad hoc appointments either by way of promotion or direct recruitment made against a substantive vacancy not later than 6.8.1993 were entitled to be regularized and placed on probation. The aforesaid provision was introduced with effect from 20.4.1998 and it further provides that in order to obtain the benefit of regularization, the concerned teacher should have been appointed prior to 6.8.1993 and should have been continuing upto the date of introduction of the said provision in 1998.;