Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119394 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32487 of 2017 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Dhama Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Dhama,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. The fourth- respondent Institution has advertised the vacancy and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 14.07.1993 and he joined in the Institution on 15.07.1993. Consequently when the respondents have not released the salary of the petitioner he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.13646 of 1994 and based on the interim order in the said writ petition on 22.04.1994 the respondents have released the salaries to the petitioner and his services were also approved vide order dated 22.04.1994. Subsequently the petitioner services were regularized by the respondents under 33-G vide proceedings dated 15.03.2017. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition is filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 14.07.1993 and his appointment was approved by the competent authority, hence he is entitled for regularization as per 33-F instead of regularizing the service under 33-G. 3. The respondents have regularized the services of the petitioner by taking the date of payment of salary i.e. from the year 1995 which is contrary to the observations made by this Court in various judgments. In fact an identical issue was considered by this Court in Writ A No.12909 of 2008 (Ravi Prakash Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and Others), is held as follows:- "However, approval to his appointment was granted w.e.f. July, 1996. The approval is an act by which the action of the selection committee is confirmed. Such an act will always relates to the date when the selection/appointment has been made. It is trite law that once the selection has been made and approval to the appointment has been granted, it will be presumed that appointment has been made from the date of appointment order. The object of approval is to ensure that the person who has been selected is duly qualified and eligible for the post and there was no impediment in appointing him on the post in question. This power of review is granted with the sole intent that the State, who is required to pay salary from the public exchequer, must satisfy that appointment has been made in accordance with law. Once the approval has been granted it only ratifies the action of the selection committee and it always relate to the date when such appointment was made. The date of approval is not the date of appointment as it only confirms the action of the selection committee. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner's appointment will date back when he was initially appointed i.e. on 1.7.1992 and not July, 1996 when the approval was granted, as such, he is entitled to regularisation under section 33-C of Act of 1982. 4. Further, in Writ A No.7042 of 2021 (Ram Singar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), where the claim is under the 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 has been denied by the respondents on the ground that in the particular period the salaries were not paid, and the Court has taken view that the rejection is done on the ground of non-payment of salaries for a particular period, his regularization cannot be made, accordingly the impugned order therein is set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as the petitioner was appointed on 14.07.1993 and his appointment was approved by the competent authority hence, his case would come under the cut-off date fixed as per Section-33-F. According to 33-F the appointment would come by promotion or directed recruitment in the Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Teacher on or after 14.05.1991 and before 06.08.1993 ought to be regularized. In the instant case as the appointment of the petitioner was on 14.07.1993 i.e. prior to the cut-off date fixed under 33-F, accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for regularization under 33-F instead of 33-G. 6. After notice the respondents have filed counter affidavit and in the counter they have taken the very same stand as the petitioner was paid salaries from 1995, hence they have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization under 33-G. 7. Considering the submissions and perusal of the records as the petitioner was appointed on 14.07.1993, whether the salaries were paid or not, the services of the petitioner should be taken into consideration, from the date of initial appointment. Once the appointment is prior to the cut-off date fixed under 33-F, his case should be considered under 33-F. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 is set aside, directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner by taking 14.07.1993 as the date of appointment and consider the services of the petitioner for regularization under 33-F. This exercise should be completed within a period of one month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad