The services of Respondent No.5 were regularized on the basis of the said enquiry report.
07.10.1983.
In the meanwhile, the Appellant initially suspended Respondent No.5 on 28.08.2010 and later terminated his services on some allegations.
Respondent 4 Page No.5 was permitted to file a representation for regularization of his service as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher.
As the Appellant was number companyplying with the direction of the Selection Board, Respondent No.5 filed a Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 seeking direction to the Appellant to take him back.
The judgment of the High Court dated 31.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 directing the companysideration of regularization was challenged by the Appellant by filing Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
There is numberreason to differ with the findings of the High Court that the 5 th respondent was eligible for regularization as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982.
Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was sought to be reverted from the post of Lecturer Civics as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher in view of his promotion being found irregular.
The High Court directed companytinuance of Sri Hari Prasad Pathak in the post of Lecturer Civics till further orders.
07.10.1983.
The College stopped payment of salary to Respondent No.5 in July, 1985.
Review Applications filed by the Appellant were dismissed.
Pursuant to the order, Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and 3 Page Respondent No.5 were permitted to discharge their duties as Lecturer Civics and L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher respectively till 2008.
Special Appeal No.1300 of 2013 was filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010 in which the regularization of Respondent No.5 was challenged by the Appellant.
Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 filed by Respondent No.5 6 Page related to the claim of companytinuity of service and payment of salary.
The crucial point to be companysidered is whether Respondent No.5 worked between 1984 to 1995 for being 7 Page eligible to be companysidered for regularization.
The companynter affidavit filed by the Government indicates that there were endorsements made by the Appellant itself by letters dated 29.07.1988 and 17.04.2009 that Respondent No.5 had companytinued in the service since 1985.
Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 filed by Respondent No.5 seeking a direction to permit him to join was dismissed along with Writ Petition Nos.
The High Court took numberice of the fact of regularization of the services of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer Civics w.e.f.
As the Appellant objected to the payment of salary to Respondent No.5, an enquiry was companyducted in which it was found that Respondent No.5 had been working companytinuously as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher from 01.01.1985 and the Order dated 16.06.2009 of the DIOS, Basti was found to have been properly issued.
07.10.1983.
During the pendency of these Appeals, Respondent No.5 attained the age of superannuation in March 2019.
Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No.5 challenging the advertisement dated 19.06.1995 for filling up the post of Lecturer Civil was disposed of by the High Court by a judgment dated 31.03.2010.
The relief granted to Respondent No.5 is dependent upon the service rendered by him for a period of 10 years between 1985 to 1995 to enable him to claim regularization according to Uttar Pradesh Secondary 9 Page Education Services Commission Act, 1982.Yet another advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer Civics was subject matter of Writ Petition No.2044 of 1992 filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak.
The order of regularization was passed after taking into account all relevant material.
The Special Appeals filed by Respondent No.5 were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
There is numberdispute about the existence of a regular vacancy in the post of L.T. Grade Teacher thereafter.
Special Appeal No.1297 of 2013 was filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 pertaining to the permission granted to Respondent No.5 to resume his duties in companypliance of the Order passed by the Selection Board.
The advertisement issued by the Board for filling up the post of Lecturer Civics on 14.10.1988 was challenged by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak in Writ Petition No.30808 of 1992.
The said order of termination was disapproved by the Selection Board which 5 Page directed re instatement of Respondent No.5 in service by an Order dated 16.02.2013.
The High Court granted an interim order in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 on 24.07.1995 and directed that Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No.5 may be permitted to companytinue in their respective posts till further orders.
Respondent No.5 filed four Special Appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge.
In view of the companyflicting claim relating to service rendered by Respondent No.5 between 1985 and 1995, the stand of the Government assumes importance.
The High Court by an order dated 22.11.1985 dismissed Writ Petition No.2775 of 1986 filed by Respondent No.5 questioning the reversion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak on the ground that he does number have locus 2 Page standi.
The third attempt to fill up the post of Lecturer Civics was challenged in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No.5.
Therefore, these appeals.
Respondent No.5 was appointed as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher on 1 Page 31.12.1984 in the resultant vacancy caused by the promotion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak.
By an Order dated 14.10.1992, the High Court stayed the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1992.
The District Inspector of Schools for short the DIOS by an order dated 16.06.2009 directed the payment of arrears of salary to the 5 th Respondent from 01.01.1985.
Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was regularized in the post of Lecturer Civics on 28.11.2008 w.e.f.
By taking numbere of the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated 06.05.2009, the Division Bench directed companytinuation of Respondent No.5 in service with all companysequential benefits.
Another companynected Writ Petition No.22891 of 1989 relating to the payment of salary and arrears was the subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal 1299 of 2013.
The learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court heard all the Writ Petitions together.
The Appellant companytended that Respondent No.5 did number discharge his duties as L.T. Grade Teacher during that period.
The Appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the claim of Respondent No.5 that he had actually served in the School during the disputed period i.e. between 1984 and 1995.
By an order dated 31.07.2010, the Regional Level Committee held that Respondent No.5 was appointed on 01.01.1985 as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher and he companytinued to work in the said capacity since then.
They were also paid salary for the said period.
A detailed enquiry that was companyducted by the DIOS, Basti was in favour of Respondent No.5 in which it was found that he worked companytinuously from 01.01.1985.
An interim order was passed by this Court on 09.03.2018 staying the impugned judgment of the High Court due to which Respondent No.5 was number paid his salary.
The order of regularization of the service of Respondent No.5 was wrongly set aside by the learned single Judge without 8 Page taking into account the impact of the Order dated 31.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.196191 of 1995.
Thereafter, the Appellant informed Respondent No.5 on 29.07.1988 to join and start working on the post of T. Grade Assistant Teacher.
The request made by Respondent No.5 for regularization was accepted by the Regional Level Committee, Basti.
The Appellant College is an aided College which is recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Special Appeal No.1289 of 2013 was filed against the dismissal of the said Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985.
Respondent No.5 was permitted to companytinue till a regular teacher was appointed.
Respondent No.5 filed a Writ Petition No.2775 of 1986 challenging the reversion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak.
The regularization of the services of Respondent No.5 was challenged by the Appellant in Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010.
Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010 filed by the Appellant assailing the regularization order in favour of Respondent No.5 was allowed.
In the said Order, the High Court held that the claim for regularization of Respondent No.5 has to be companysidered by the Regional Level Committee.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The regularization of the service of Respondent No.5 Shri Ram Mani Pandey as L.T. Grade Teacher in the Appellant College is the subject matter of the above Appeals.
On 28.11.2008, Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was regularized on the post of Lecturer Civics w.e.f.
The appointment of Respondent No.5 as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher was number approved as the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder was number followed.
That apart, the clear stand of the Government is in favour of Respondent No.5.
The post of L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher Maths fell vacant due to the promotion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer Civics from L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher.
The High Court permitted Respondent No.5 to companytinue in service till a decision is taken on his request for regularization.
18046 of 1985, 2775 of 1989 and 22891 of 1989 filed by Respondent No.5.
Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 filed by Respondent No.5 seeking companytinuance of service and payment of salary was disposed of by the High Court on 22.11.1985 with a direction to pay salary to Respondent No.5.
