IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LUCKNOW BENCH: LUCKNOW

Writ-A. No. of 2023
Hare Krishna Pandey, aged about 46 years, S/o Shiv Kumer Pandey, R/o Ward
No.2 Kila Bachhrawan, District Raebareli , Uttar Pradesh
…………..Petitioner
Versus
1.State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Secondary- education),
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Bap Bhawan, Lucknow
2. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, 23, Allenganj,
Prayagraj, through its Secretary
3. Deputy Secretary of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board,
Prayagraj
4.District Inspector of Schools, District Ambedkarnag.ar Levins Committee of
Management Rajnarayan Jeiswial inter College-Nagram Lucknow, through its
Manager.
………………Opposite parties

WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the aforesaid
Court.

The humble Petitioner most respectfully submits as under:

1. That the Petitioner ‘declares that this is the first Writ Petition filed by them on
the present cause of action and no other Writ Petition on the said cause of action
has ever been filed by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court either at
Allahabad or at Lucknow and no caveat has been received by the Petitioner in
the subject matter by any means.

2, That the petitioner is aggrieved against the inaction of the Opp-Party no.4 by
means of which the name of petitioner was not forwarded to the Opp-party
No.3 in the weightage category in examination held pursuant to the
advertisement no.} of 2021 issued by the Board. Further the merit list of the
aforesaid examination was prepared .I without adding 25.5 weightage marks
with the written marks i.e. 328 which if added becomes 353.5 mark:, which is
more than lowest cut off merit of 352 marks.

3. That the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed at
Rajnarayan Jaiswal Inter College-Nagra, Lucknow, on the post of Assistant
Teacher from 01.07.2004 and is getting salary from state exchequer. Till date no
candidate from Board has been sent for joining on the post of the petitioner. It is
worthwhile to mention here that though in the appointment letter of petitioner
was under provision 16E(11) as there was no other provision in the 1921 Act to
make appointment by the Committee of Management. The true copy of the
appointment letter dated 22.06.2004 of the petitioner is annexed herewith as
Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and the true copy of the joining letter dated
01.07.2004 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition. Though
the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Raj Narain Jaiswal Inter
College, Nagram, college recognized under the provision of Utter Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act 1921, but the salary was not paid to the petitioner
then, petitioner filed writ petition 4247/2009 before this Hon'ble Court and then
this Hon'ble court was pleased to direct for payment of salary to the petitioner.
The true copy of order date 13.09.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court for salary
to the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to the “ writ petition.
16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions
11)Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing of sub-sections, -
appointments in the case of: ‘a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave
to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or 4 by death ,
termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational
sessions, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to
the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions
as may be prescribed:
Provided that no appointment made under this subsection 1 shall, in any case,
continue beyond the end of ire educational session during which such
appointment was made.
Therefore, it is more than apparent that petitioner's appointment was under the
provision of Section 16E(11) and not in any other provision.
4.That actually in the State of U.P.,power was vested in the Committee of
Management of recognized intermediate colleges, recognized under the
provision of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 to make
appointment on the post of teachers bri later on in the year 1982 after
reinforcement of U1. Secondary Service Selection Commission Act 1982, the
power of making selection was snatched away from Committee of Management
and was vested with Secondary Education Service Selection Commission ,
which was later on converted into Board. However, there was huge delay in
making selection, which has result. in non availability of teachers in the
colleges. The Committee of Management having no other alternative, proceeded
to make adhoc appointment in the interest of students. When such appointments
were made, the salary was not paid by concerned D.J.O.S from State Exchequer
then, various writ petitions were filed by the incumbents and Hon'ble High
Court passed order fer ‘Salary, as has been passed for payment of salary of
petitioner as mentioned hereinabove.

5.That thereafter in some matter contrary view was taken by the Hon'ble High
Court and ultimately matter went before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was
heard by Hon'ble Supreme .Court in Civil Appeal no. 8300/2014. In Supreme
Court on various dates which the Hon'ble about the during hearing expressed its
concern about the incumbents who were working for long and they were under
threat to be replaced by candidates who were going to be selected by the Board.
The true copy of various ; orders interim passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is
annexed herewith as Annexure No.5(Colly) to this writ petition.

6. That ultimately in the Precarious condition of the education system of U.P.

wherein work continued to be taken from ad-hoc teachers for years, litigation
cropped up, which culminated in passing of the judgement an order dated
26.8.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016,
(Sanjay Singh and ors. Versus State of U.P. and others) with other connected
matters. A copy of the order dated 26.8.2020 is being nnexed as ANNEXURE
NO. 6 to this writ petition.

7. That para 7 of the judgment and order dated 26.8.2022 is being reproduced
below-
"7.It is in the conspectus or all the aforesaid circumstances that we consider
appropriate to issue the /following directions in exercise of power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India.
a) All the petitioner/ appellants and applicants before us and for that matter all
persons eligible under the advertisement will be permitted to appear for or
single examination.
b) Such of the persons who are successful, would have to go through a process
of interview insofar as the post of lecturers is concerned, as we are informed
that the post of T.G.T. the interviews have been dispensed with,
c) We are inclined to give some weightage to other persons who have worked as
T.G.T. and lectures spending on the period of service rendered. It is respondent
no. 3 Commission which will have tweak this aspect and work out giving some
of weightage to both the T.G.T. lecturers depending on the period of service
rendered in the case of T.G.T. such weightage will have to form a part of the
total marks while in case of the lecturers such weightage can be given in the
process of interview.

d) The advertisement to be issued should contain the terms of these directions

issued by us today.
e) We make it clear that the decision as aforesaid will be final of the
Commission and no further litigation will be entertained in respect thereof.

f) Insofar as the verification of past service is concerned, the concerned

teachers/lecturers would given the particulars and details to the Commission for
obtaining such weightage and that aspect will be verified by the Commission in
consultation with the State Government as we are told that it is State
Government which would have the wherewithal to as the needful. Needless to
say that aspect will also be final without any further any further litigation being
entertained led in that behalf.

g) In view a the weightage given, for the same the examination process can be
completed.
h) The other ‘aspect is that apart from the weightage., the period which has
been verified as having been spent in ‘teaching’ as ad-hoc, would be counted for
purposes of” retiral benefits of the T.G.T’s and lecturers."

8.That the aforesaid judgment provides that the temporary/adhoc

T.G.T.s/Lecturers will be given weightage of their’ services and would continue
to work a till the completion of the examination contemplated to be
completed prior of the commencing of session in July.
9. That as stated above after consultation and deliberation, respondent no.3 the
Board Published Advertisement No. 01/2021 T.G.T. and Advertisement No.
02/2021 Pravakta P.G.T. for written examination for 126603 vacant post of
trained graduate teachers(T.G.T) and 2595 vacant post of lecturer P.G.T. in the
added non Governmental Inter Colleges respectively. The Photo copy of the
Advertisement No. 01/202) T.G.T. is annexed herewith as annexed as
ANNEXURE NO.7 to this writ petition.

10.That in the clause 10(4)(a) of the advertisement 1/2021 mentioned that the
ad-hoc teachers would be granted\weightage of their services and 1.5 marks
would awarded to them for per year services which will not be more than 30.
marks. The clause 10(4)(a) is quoted as follows:

11.That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner joined the Rajnarayan
Jaiswal Inter College-Nagra Lucknow, on 01.07.2004 and’ is in continues
services. Further the petitioner has completed 16 years 10 months and 19 days
of services at the time of filing the application form and is also covered with
the order date: 26.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. The true copy of
service book of the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure No.8 to this writ
petition.

12. That the aforesaid Advertisements provided schedule for making online
applications with 16.3.2021 as the date for commencement of registration of
online applications and 11.04.2021 as the last date for submitting online
application for part I sand 15.4.202) as the last date for submitting the online
application for part II.

13. That the petitioner submitted his online application in the Mathematics.
subject and got Application ID as UPO0020091581004007652, Registration No.
UP00210041003555. The true copy of online application form submitted by the
petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition.

14.That it is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner who has filled his
application form, specially mentioned his initial date, of joining as.01.07.2004
but since he has also mentioned the date of payment of salary as 13.09.2010, in
the bottom of the aforesaid application form the computer automatically
calculated the length of service of the petitioner, which data has not been feed
by the petitioner rather the same was automatically taken by the computer
generated program.
15.That it is worthwhile to mention here that thereafter the petitioner appeared’
in ‘the written examination of the aforesaid exam conducted on 08.08.202 at
Rajkeey, Rampal Vaidik Inter College, Raebarely. The true copy of the admit
card’ of the’ petitioner is annexed herewith ANNEXURE .10 to this writ
petition.
16.That by means of letter dated 16.09.2021 & 21.09 202', the District Inspector
of Schools of different districts wei2 directed to forward the name of the
candidates/aspirants who are covered under the order dated 26.08.2020. The
true copy of letter dated 16.09.2021 & 21.09.2021 is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. 11(Colly) to this writ petition.

17.That the result of the aforesaid examination was declared and the petitioner
secured 328 marks but surprisingly the weightage of the services was not added
to the total marks of the petitioner in highly illegal and arbitration manner. The
true copy of result of the petitioners annexed herewith as Annexure No.12 to
this writ petition.
18.That it is pertinent to mention here that the cut off merit of the aforesaid
examination was 352 for mathematics subject (General Category) and the
petitioner has secure | 328 marks in the written examination. The true copy of
the merit list ig annexed herewith as Annexure No.13 to this writ petition.

19.That when the result was declared, the petitioner could not get selected then
petitioner became shocked. Thereafter petitioner made enquiry as to why he has
not been selected then petitioner came to know that weightage marks has not
been added which was the only reason for not selection of the petitioner.

20.That the District Inspector of Schools has not given weightage to the
petitioner in the aforesaid examination and petitioner was given weightage then
the petitioner's name would be in the merit list.
Marks Obtained Total Years of weightage Total Marks
Service
328 16 years 10 1.5*17=25.5 328/25.5=353.5
months , 19 days

21.That it is worthwhile to mention here that from perusal of online application

form filled by the applicants, it is more than apparent that petitioner has
specifically mentioned about the initial date of appointment in the college as
Asst. teacher and has filed the column specifically, which makes it apparent that
petitioner has worked i1 the college as Asst. teacher for 16 years, 10 months and
19 days which makes petitioner eligible for weightage of 17 years. This detail
has been filled by the petitioner in the application form is very well available
with the opposite party no. 3 and 4. It was incumbent upon the opposite party
no. 3 & 4 ‘to give weightage to th: petitioner of” “25.5 ‘marks as has been
provided in the advertisement itself. Since the petitioner has not been given
weightage, petitioner has not been selected which is not only shocking to thé
conscious of justice and which also the teeth of judgment and order dated
26.8.2020 as well as. 7.12.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court civil Appeal
No. 8300/2016.

22.That by means of ‘order dated 07.12.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed
off the Civil Appeal No. 8300/2016. The true copy ‘of judgement and order
dated 07.12.2021 is annexed herewith as ‘Annexure No.14 to this writ petition.
23.That it is worthwhile to mention here that there were total 1446 candidates
who have filled their forms under T.G.T category, pursuant to Advertisement
No. 1/2021, who were working in the state of Uttar Pradesh appointed by
Committee of Management. These 1446 candidates . includes petitioner also.
The petitioner's serial number is 851 Out of these 1446 candidates 150
applicants were found to be bogus and then there remained only 1293
applicants. Out of 1296 applicants, 126 applicants were to be “appointed under
Provisions of Section 16E(11). However, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while hearing
application on persons whose appointment letter Provision of Section 16E(11)
was net mentioned and they were also seeking weightage, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that even if apart from 126 applicants, all 1296 candidates are
given weightage, the complete ‘justice will be done in the matter. The relevant
portion of ‘Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2021 is quoted below:

“We have perused t the affidavit filed by the State Government. In terms of para
1446 ad hoc teachers applied under Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) category,
and 9 ad hoc teachers applied under the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT)
category and claimed weightage on the ground of service as an ad hoc teacher,
The Board directed the District Inspectors of Schools to verify the details of
these candidates who had claimed’ weightage as ad hoc teachers. Out of these,
on verification, 2 was found that 150 applicants Were not even working as ad
hoc teachers as they had claimed weightage by giving false information. That in
our view,Reason put an end of their story.
Out of the T296 1266 applicants have been found appointed ad hoc following
procedure as prescribed, under Section 16E (11) of intermediate Education
Act, 1921 Were short, the Act") and accordingly weightage was given to these
adhoc teachers.
The aforesaid having. been verified, one of the pleas raised by the applicants
that at least theese. people should be released their salary.
We feel this is an appropriate direction to be passed,for release of arrears of
salary for these persons, naturally if not already paid. It is next set out in the
affidavit that 9 applicants had applied under the PCT category, but it was
found that without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid
Section, they were recruited.

Insofar as the 1.26 candidates, ave concerned, due to low performance rule
written examination 123 candidates could not be selected in the final merit list
4. ‘
TOT category and 3 candidates have been selected! in the final merit list. It has
thereafter been set out that under the TGT category, 16 candidates have been
Selected even without giving weightage marks and similarly 3 ad hoc graduates
os RS teachers have also been selected in PGT category without giving
weightage mark. On query from the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel an appearing for the Selection Board states that if weightage had been
given, 15 candidates would have made it in TGT and 3 would have made it in
PGT. This is premised on the basis that if such weightage was given to all the
1296 candidates.

Thus, the only issue remains for consideration of these 18 persons appointed
who are stated to had not been strictly appointed in terms of Section 16 (E)of
the said Act. in view of the large number of vacancies in recruitinent and the
passage of time for which they have worked, to put a quietus to the issue to
consider appropriate that these 18 people may also be given appointment. We
do so by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to
do complete justice . The list of these applicants be published on the web site
within 1week.

Insofar as the persons who have informed not to have been recruited
compliance of Section 16 (E) 11, that does not take away the obligation of the
Institute to pay those people the salary having taken work from them. This is the
burden of the Management and we cannot burden the Government Application
stands disposed of. The necessary action be taken by the respondent(s) within a
maximum period 3 two months from today. We make it clear that this puts a
quietus to the complete issue and no furth 1 proceedings before us or before the
High Court are to be entertained.”

24.That the petitioner “Who ‘was not before Hon'ble Supreme Court, could not
know about the said order passed by Hon'ble Supreme court However, when the
result was declared and ‘it camé ‘to the knowledge of petitioner that all
candidates Have been given weightage, the petitioner after coming to know
that he has secured 328 marks in written examination and cutoff merit was 352,
the petitioner must have been selected as he was entitled for 25.5 weightage
marks. Then the petitioner started making repeated applications, which are
referred in the, writ petition “and “ultimately on 13.09.2022 when information
‘has been given to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary of U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj on 13.09.2022 that it was fault.
of 1.1.0.8 Lucknow who did not certified that services of petitioner and due to
this reason the petitioner has been deprived from giving weightage then
petitioner became highly shocked and thereafter the petitioner having no other
alternative remedy except to approach this hon’ble court.