In a pivotal ruling, the Allahabad High Court raised concerns about the competence of the Regional Regularization Committee, formed by the Uttar Pradesh government, to oversee the regularization of assistant teachers appointed on short-term and ad-hoc vacancies. The court was hearing multiple writ petitions, including WRIT – A No. 21492 of 2023, filed by teachers whose claims for regularization had been rejected. The judgment has significant implications for numerous teachers seeking permanent status in the state’s education system.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a group of teachers, led by Vinod Kumar Srivastava, who challenged the orders dated 21.11.2023 and 22.11.2023, issued by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Jalaun at Orai, halting their salaries in compliance with a government order. The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari and Shivendu Ojha, argued that the stoppage of their salaries and rejection of their regularization claims were unjust.
The petitioners were appointed to short-term vacancies and had served for extended periods. Their applications for regularization under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, and its subsequent amendments, were denied by the Regional Regularization Committee. The rejection was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), which the Committee cited as a precedent.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Regularization Committee:
The petitioners questioned the ability of the Committee to apply the law fairly, citing that its decisions were inconsistent with legal provisions laid out in Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, which provide specific guidelines for regularizing ad-hoc appointments.
2. Application of Supreme Court Precedents:
The Committee’s reliance on the Sanjay Singh case (2020) was also challenged. The petitioners argued that the circumstances in their cases were different, and the Committee misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling in denying their regularization.
3. Constitutional Concerns:
The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, contending that their legal rights had been violated due to the arbitrary application of the law by the Committee.
Court’s Observations:
The case was presided over by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. The court expressed concerns about the Committee’s competence in fairly evaluating the regularization claims, stating that its reliance on the Sanjay Singh ruling was not entirely appropriate. Justice Agarwal emphasized that:
– The U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, and its subsequent amendments, were designed to provide a clear path for the regularization of teachers serving in short-term and ad-hoc positions.
– While the Sanjay Singh case aimed to end the practice of ad-hoc appointments, it did not universally preclude the regularization of all teachers appointed under such conditions, especially those eligible under the amended provisions of the 1982 Act.
In a key observation, the court remarked:
“The purpose of regularization laws is to provide a fair chance to those teachers who have served in good faith and meet the eligibility criteria, ensuring they are not left in a state of professional uncertainty.”
Court’s Decision:
The court did not issue a final ruling on the regularization itself but directed the state to reassess the claims of the petitioners in light of the correct application of the law. The court ordered that:
– The petitioners should continue receiving their salaries until a final decision is made on their regularization status.
– The state should re-evaluate the rejection of their regularization applications, taking into account the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, and its amendments, without misapplying the Sanjay Singh case.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: WRIT – A No. 21492 of 2023
Connected Cases: WRIT – A No. 5731 of 2024, WRIT – A No. 2365 of 2024, and others.
Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari and Shivendu Ojha
Counsel for Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.)
