- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal learned Counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 17328 of 2002 and writ petition No. 37898 of 2002, Sri G. D. Misra appearing on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 21768 of 2002 and writ petition No. 21822 of 2002 and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent State. Since the controversy involved in these writ petitions is common, the same is being decided by a common judgment with the consent of the parties treating the writ petition No. 17328 of 2002 leading one.
(2.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed by the State. Since there are no disputed questions of fact and there is consent of both parties, I am proceeding to hear and decide the matter finally under the Rules of the Court. The petitioner has made the following prayers - " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated 20-2-2002, passed by respondent NO. 3 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition); (ii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction striking down the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 33-C of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 brought on the Statute Book w. e. f. 20-4-1998; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent NO. 4 to pay the petitioner salary on the post of Principal; (iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) allow this petition with costs. " The petitioner has made representation seeking regularization as per provisions of Section 33-C (1) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982) on the ground of applicability of Section 33-C (6) of the Act, 1982. It is the representation of the petitioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20-2-2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). The petitioner has, therefore, sought to challenge the vires of Section 33-C (6) of the Act aforesaid as amended by the U. P. Act No. 25 of 1998. According to the petitioner by the impugned provision Section 33-C (6), the right and entitlement for regularization conferred under the Act is sought to be taken away on the existence of a situation where either the vacancy has been filled up or selection for the vacancy has been made on the date of coming into force of the Amending Act, which came into being on 20-4- 1998. The undisputed facts of the case are set hereinbelow.
(3.) ON 20-7-1969 the petitioner was appointed a Lecturer in Mathematics in the College of respondent No. 4. A permanent vacancy on the post of Principal arose at the College in question due to the retirement of the permanent Principal of the College Sri Kashmir Singh Pundir on 30-6-1991. On 14-9-1991 the petitioner was granted an ad-hoc appointment on the post of Principal of the College in exercise of the powers under Section 18 (as it then existed) of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982.;