Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43847 (ALL)

SANJEEV KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/32723/2013 · 2025-04-27

Donadi Ramesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65096 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32723 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondent no.2 to accord consideration to the petitioners for regularization/absorption against substantively vacant post. 3. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 got appointed by Government Industrial Training Institute, Etah on 14.08.2001 and 30.08.2001, respectively. Petitioner no.3 got appointed on 11.12.2000 as Prakshikshan Mitra and thereafter next year as guest speaker in Government Industrial Training Institute, Etah. Since the petitioners are working continuously as Guest Speaker as per the notification issued by the Government on 30.05.2001. The decision has been taken by the State Government to appoint Guest Speakers against vacant posts of instructors in different trades in Government Industrial Training Institutes on payment of daily honorarium basis. As the Teaching work in the Industrial Training Institute continues throughout the year with a short term summer break. As the petitioners are having requisite qualification for the post against which they have been appointed as Guest Speaker and they have worked for substantial length of period in the institution. Hence they are entitle for regularization in the said posts. That has not been considered by the respondents, hence, the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the identical situation a bunch of writ petitions are disposed of as in Writ A No. 38333 of 2016 in Bhairav Nath Singh and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P and 2 Others, wherein this Court has disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:- "26. Accordingly, all the writ petitions bearing Writ A No.38333 of 2016, Writ A No.40833 of 2016, Writ A No.44315 of 2016, Writ A No.51565 of 2016 and Writ A No.8507 of 2024 are hereby allowed. 27. The impugned order dated 24.05.2016 in Writ A No.38333 of 2016, order dated 13.06.2016 in Writ A No.40833 of 2016 and orders dated 24.05.2016 and 23.06.2016 in Writ A No.8507 of 2024 passed by the Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development Department, State of U.P. are unsustainable in law and are hereby quashed. 28. A mandamus is issued to the respondent No.1- Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development, State of U.P. to pass fresh orders regarding regularization of services of the petitioners, after taking into consideration the merit of the claim of each individual petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till a final order is passed in the matter, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to remain in service and will be paid their salaries regularly." 5. Against the above orders the State has filed Special Appeal No.1120 of 2024 in State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs. Bhairavnath and 3 Others. The said special appeal dismissed with the following observations:- "Learned State Counsel has not been able to highlight any of the Clause occurring in Rule 2, which alone is exempted from applicability of Regularization Rules, 2016. Once that be so, we find that direction of the learned Single Judge to accord consideration to the respondent- petitioners' claim is in keeping with the State policy for regularization. To what extent, claim of the respondent- petitioners is covered under the Rules is left open for examination." 6. In view of the same, these petitioners are also entitled for the same relief. As the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also accepted that the issue was already decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.04.2025. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of with the same observations, as the orders in special appeal. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad