After Completing 15 Yrs Service, Employee Can't Be Held Liable For Procedural Lapses In Appointment On Part Of Nagar Nigam: Allahabad HC
Upasna Agrawal
1 Oct 2024 7:00 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has held that the part-time teachers who possess requisite qualifications cannot be denied benefit of the services after 15-16 years of service because of procedural lapses on part of the Nagar Nigam in following in appointment of such-teachers.
“Once the candidates had requisite qualification and were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, whether advertisement was made in one newspaper or not, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the default, if any, committed by the officials of the Nigam,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Case Background
41 Petitioners were appointed in recognized unaided schools run by Nagar Nigam Kanpur to meet the additional requirement of teachers in such schools. The appointments were made based on requisite qualification after advertisements being issued by the Nagar Nigam and were consolidated salaries. All petitioners were appointed between 1991 to 2001.
Due to alleged complaints against the appointed teachers, Secretary, Lok Ayukt U.P. issued a letter to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari stating that fresh appointments be made. Pursuant to the letter an advertisement was published stating that services of the petitioners will not be extended beyond academic year 2001-02.
The advertisement was challenged and the High Court permitted the petitioners to work till regular appointments were made by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. Further, salary till such appointments were made was to be paid to the petitioners.
In review proceedings, the High Court directed if the teachers were appointed under the Section 7AA of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971) then they shall be continued in service. However, it was clarified that such teachers, appointed in only recognized institutions, could not be paid salary from public exchequer and were not be absorbed or transferred to aided institutions.
Subsequently, the Nagar Ayukt held that the appointment of petitioners as part-time teachers was not in accordance with law as advertisement was not published in 2 daily newspapers.
Challenging this order, counsel for petitioners argued that the appointments were made by the Selection Committee which was constituted pursuant to the advertisement. It was held that the advertisement was challenged before the Court and upheld, after working from 1991, the petitioners could not now be removed from services.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the order of Nagar Ayukt did not highlight the failure on part of the Nagar Nigam Officials in not publishing 2 advertisements thereby violating the Government Order. It was observed that the impugned order was passed overlooking the earlier order of the writ Court.
“Most of the petitioners have completed part-time service in the institution run by the Nigam for almost 15 to 16 years. Their appointments were renewed from time to time by the Nigam. Number of advertisements have been brought on record by some of the petitioners to demonstrate the fact that due procedure was followed while they were appointed as a part- time teacher.”
The Court held that the burden to prove that there was a procedural lapse on part of its officers and proper procedure was not followed while making the appointments was on the Nagar Nigam.
Justice Agrawal held that
“Petitioners cannot be held responsible for any procedural lapse on the part of officials of Nigam after 15 or 16 years of making appointment once this Court had found that the appointment of petitioners was made keeping in view of Section 7AA of Act of 1921. The only requirement was to consider that they had requisite qualification and were selection by a validly constituted Selection Committee and not to go into minor procedural irregularity such as making advertisement in daily newspaper.”
The Court observed that the Nagar Nigam had not denied that no advertisement was made for selection, but it was trying to bring this issue for the first time after the order had been passed by the writ Court.
Holding that the petitioners cannot be penalized for the lapses on part of authorities, the Court set aside the order of the Nagar Ayukt and remanded the matter to decide a fresh in terms of the earlier order of the writ Court in accordance with Section 7AA of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971.
Case Title: Smt. Poonam Shukla & Others v. State of U.P. & Others [WRIT - A No. - 32670 of 2007]
