S.33-G UP Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act A Beneficiary Provision To Regularize Teachers Serving For Decades: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 which was added by way of amendment in 2016 was added a beneficiary scheme for teachers who had spent decades serving as teachers.

The provision governs substantive appointments of teachers on posts other than that of the Principal/ Headmaster. Sub-section (a) thereof provides for regularization of teacher, other than the principal or headmaster, who has been appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturers grade or trained graduate grade, on or after 7.8.1993, but not later than 25.1.1999 on short term Vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 198, which was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy.

“..the provisions contained under section 33- G of the Act 1982, is a beneficiary scheme launched by the State Government looking into the plight of the teachers who were serving for more than two decades and their service conditions were not regulated as there was no statutory provisions,” noted Justice Shree Prakash Singh.

Case Background

Petitioners, in the bunch of writ petitions, were appointed either under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order framed under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 or under unamended Section 18 of 1982 Act. Subsequently, in 2016, Section 33-G which mandated the Regional Level Committee to thoroughly examine the case of the petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Regional Level Committees had acted in contradiction to the law and without considering the cases of the petitioners.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that since there was shortage of teachers in State of UP, various committees of managements in the state appointed teachers. When the District Inspector of Schools did not grant financial aid, then the teachers approached the High Court which by way of interim relief directed continuity in service and payment of salaries. The Court observed that as a result most the teachers had been getting salaries for more than 2 decades.

Holding that Section 33-G was a beneficiary scheme for teachers who had worked for decades and were still not governed or regulated by statutory provisions, the Court observed that appointment records of the petitioners had not been placed before the Regional Level Committee and the decision to not regularize the petitioners was taken without due consideration of the records.

The Court also held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing the order and no records were consulted procured from the committee of managements or the DIOS prior to passing of the order.

The Court further observed that even though the DIOS was a member of the Regional Level Committee, neither the DIOS nor the committee of managements tried to submit any records for the purpose of considering the regularization of such teachers/petitioners.

The Court opined that “an employee should not be deprived of any benefit or the provisions of law only because of the fact that some error has been committed by the employer including the State and if it is so, the same must be rectified.”

The Court held that the State being a welfare state failed in its duties to appoint teachers, petitioners were appointed to impart education in remote areas.

“In fact, the State, while looking into the aforesaid Act No.7 of 1982 while inserting provision 33-G, provided that those teachers other than principal or headmaster, appointed by promotion or direct recruitment, after 7.8.1993, but not later than 30.12.2000, shall be given substantive appointment, but the impugned orders clearly show that Regional Level Committee without the reports of the Committee of Management and District Inspector of Schools, has passed the orders, which in fact failed the very purpose of prescribing the scheme under section 33-G of the Act 1982.”

The Court held that orders passed by the Regional Level Committee were passed in a cursory manner without due consideration of records. Accordingly, the orders were set aside and matters were remanded back to the Regional Level Committee for fresh consideration.

Case Title: Tirthraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326 [WRIT - A No. - 8517 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Order