- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. All these three writ petitions involve the same questions of fact and law, thus are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. Two writ petitions have been filed by the Committee of Management for quashing the impugned order of regularising the services of Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh and conferring other benefits upon him. While Writ Petition No. 54549 of 2002 has been filed by Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh to give effect tot he order of regularisation and release all consequential benefits, including the arrears of pay etc.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh had been appointed by the Committee of Management, Raja Harpal Singh Maha Vidyalaya Singramau, District Jaunpur vide order dated 7th November, 1986 in exercise of its power under Section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act 1980 ). Subsequently, he claimed for regularisation in view of the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992 which was turned down on the ground that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, i. e. , good acadmic record and high second class Master's Degree as required under Section 16 of the Act, 1980 for appointment as a Lecture on the date of initial appointment, i. e. , 7-11-1986 and relaxation of qualification granted by the Committee of Management in terms of Statute 11. 13 (5) of the First Statute of the Gorakhpur University adopted by the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur was illegal. Being aggrieved, Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh filed Writ Petition No. 11127 of 1992 challenging the said Amendment Act, 1992 itself and by virtue of the interim order dated 23rd June, 1992 he continued to be in service. However, petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 1st July, 1992 and the said termination order was challenged by filing the Writ Petition No. 25259 of 1992 and he was granted interim relief. In the meanwhile the U. P. Higher Education Service Selection Commission (hereinafter called the commission) upon scrutiny came to know that the appointment of Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh had been made by the Committee of Management by manipulation without notifying the vacancy to the Commission, thus it requisitioned the applications for the post by advertisement and selected one Km. Vandana Kalhans. However she was not permitted to join as interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6383 of 1990 in which Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh got himself impleaded claimed the benefit of the interim order passed in the said writ petition. Writ Petition No. 25259 of 1992 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 16-12-1996, holding that the vacancy of the Lecturer in History in the said college was not notified to the Commission as required under Section 16 of the Act 1980. A letter was sent on a wrong address in a different context altogether and the vacancy had never been notified to the Commission. Thus, in absence of notification of the vacancy and failure on the part of the Commission to fill up the said vacancy, the said Raghvendra Pratap Singh could not have been appointed by the Committee of Management under Section 16 of the Act 1980; he did not possess the requisite qualification, i. e. , good academic record and high second class Master's Degree and the Management Committee did not have the competence to relax both requisite qualifications. At the most, it could have relaxed only one of them, and thirdly, that the father of Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh had been the Principal of the same college at the initial time of appointment on 7-11-1986, who manipulated his appointment. Appointment of a close relations of the member of the Committee of Management or Principal was barred in view of the Government Notification of 1985, and thus, he was guilty of concealment of material facts. In view thereof the appointment of Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh was declared by this Court as void ab initio. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh challenged the judgment and order of this Court dated 16- 12-1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1116 of 1997 which stood dismissed vide order dated 27-1-1997 by a speaking order. Subsequently, he filed a Review Petition No. 1575 of 1997, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31st July, 1997. In 1997 the provisions of the Act 1980 were amended by U. P. Ordinance No. 5 of 1997. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission (Amended) Ordinance 1997, by which Clause (5) to Section 31-C was inserted which provided for considering the case of regularisation of all those teachers who had been appointed as ad hoc but ceased to be teachers. In view of the said provisions the case of said Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh was reconsidered and his services were regularised vide order dated 6- 3-1998 (Annex. 15 in Writ Petition No. 16576 of 1998) and challenging the same said writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management. As the order passed therein had not been complied with, and Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh had not been given the benefit of the regularisation, he preferred Writ Petition No. 54549 of 2002, seeking direction to the respondents to allow him to join the post and pay salary etc. As during the pendency of those petitions order dated 2-5-2003 was passed that he should be paid salary regularly, the Writ Petition No. 21545 of 2003 has been filed by the Committee of Management challenging the said order. It has been submitted by Shri S. P. Singh that whatever may be the declaration of this Court earlier in its judgment dated 16-12-1996, which has duly been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the effect thereof has been taken away completely by the amendment Ordinance of 1997 amending the provisions of Section 31-C of the Act 1980 providing for regularisation of every teacher who ceased to hold the post, and therefore, his case has rightly been considered by the authorities and his regularisation is strictly in accordance with law, and therefore, the Committee of Management and other respondents are bound to give effect to the said order of regularisation and pay him the salary etc.
(3.) ON the contrary, Shri P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the the respondents has submitted that once his appointment had been declared void by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 16-12-1996 which has duly been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court by a speaking order, he cannot claim himself to be eligible to be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Ordinance 1997 and the order of regularisation is liable to be set aside. More so, the question of regularisation of these persons who ceased to hold the post does not arise under any law for the reason that regularisation should be claimed by the person who is continuously working as ad hoc/temporary for a long time, and thus, in spite of the fact that the said Ordinance is not under challenge this Court may not take notice thereof. We have considered that rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, particularly, Shri S. P. Singh for Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh in all the writ petitions, S/shri P. S. Baghel, A. B. Srivastava and A. N. Pandey for the Committee of Management and other respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record of the cases.;