Teacher's Service After Regularization Can't Be Terminated Merely Due To Lack Of Qualification At Time Of Initial Appointment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that after a long gap of time, a teacher who's services have been regularised cannot be terminated merely on grounds of lack of qualifications at the time of initial appointment.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajit Kumar held that “once the regularisation of appointment has already taken place, such teacher becomes a permanent member of service and no such teacher's service can be dispensed with on the ground that there were some inherent lack of qualification at the time of initial appointment.”

Petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis in 1985 on account of then incumbent Pawan Verma, Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics proceeding on leave without pay. Thereafter petitioner continued working till the petitioner was appointed on a vacant post.

Petitioner's services were regularised under Section 33-B (Regularization of certain other appointments) of the UP Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 in 1995. However, in 2020, the Regional Joint Director of Education recalled the order of regularization.

Petitioner argued that the appointment was regularised by the Regional Selection Committee and the Regional Joint Director of Education had no power to recall his appointment. Further, it was argued that no show cause notice was given to him before passing an order with adverse civil consequences.

It was also submitted that petitioner's marriage to the daughter of the then principal of the institution took place after his initial appointment and could not act as a bar to his appointment.

On the issue of no show cause notice being served upon the petitioner, the Court held that there was violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that Section 33-B of the UP Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 provides for a Selection Committee for regularisation of ad-hoc teacher. This committee includes the Regional Deputy Director of Education along with officer holding a post as specified by the State Government, of any department other than the education department was to be a nominated member of the State Government and DIOS of the concerned district.

Accordingly, it was held that once the appointment was made by the Regional Selection Committee, the Regional Joint Director of Education did not have any authority to recall such order on his own after 15 years of regularisation without referring the same to the Regional Selection Committee.

“On the principle of coram non judice also the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education cannot be sustained. A court or an authority which is not vested with the power to deal with the matter if deals with such matter, then the resultant action is liable to be held as void ab initio.”

The Court held that the petitioner was initially appointed in 1985 where as his marriage took place in 1987, “it cannot be said that petitioner while was given initial appointment, he was within the prohibited degree of relation so as to hold his appointment as void ab initio.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Since the petitioner had retired, the Court directed that salary arrears be paid to him along with retiral benefits.

Case Title: Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6145 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order