1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. NO. 818/2021 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8300/2016 SANJAY SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R We have perused the affidavit filed by the State Government. In terms of para 8, 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, it was found that 150 applicants were not even working as ad hoc teachers and they had claimed weightage by giving false information. That, in our view, put an end to their story.
2 Out of the 1296 TGTs., 126 applicants have been found appointed ad hoc following procedure as prescribed, under Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, “the Act”) and accordingly weightage was given to these ad hoc teachers. The aforesaid having been verified, one of the pleas raised by the applicants is that at least these people should be released their salary. We feel this is an appropriate direction to be passed for release of arrears of salary for these 126 persons, naturally if not already paid. It is next set out in the affidavit that 9 applicants had applied under the PGT category, but it was found that without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Section, they were so recruited. Insofar as the 126 candidates are concerned, due to low performance in the written examination, 123 candidates could not be selected in the final merit list for TGT 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 graduate teachers have also been selected in PGT category without giving weightage marks.
3 On query from the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel 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) 11 of the said Act. In view of the large number of vacancies in recruitment and the passage of time for which they have worked, to put a quietus to the issue, we consider appropriate that these 18 people may also be given appointment. We do so by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. The list of these applicants be published on the web site within a week. Insofar as the persons who have informed not to have been recruited in 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.
4 The necessary action be taken by the respondent(s) within a maximum period of two months from today. We make it clear that this puts a quietus to the complete issue and no further proceedings before us or before the High Court are to be entertained. ................ ....J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 07, 2021.
5 ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miscellaneous Application No. 818/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 SANJAY SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) (List for directions/compliance qua the State Government on 07.12.2021.) IA NO. 66573/2021-APPLN. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) IA NO. 159433/2021- APPLN. FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T) Date : 07-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Durga Das Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for extension of time stands
6 disposed of in terms of the signed order. M.A. and pending application also stand disposed of. [CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Signed order is placed on the file ]
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) DIARY NO.10242/2021 IN SLP [C] NOS.19561-19562/2019 SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ARADHANA SHUKLA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)/ ALLEGED CONTEMNORS WITH Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 11275/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 M.A. Diary No(s). 11891/2021 in Civil Appeal No.8300/2016 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 421/2021 in C.A. No.8300/2016 Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s).24828/2021 in SLP [C] NOS.19561-19562/2019 O R D E R Application for permission to file Contempt Petition is rejected in Contempt Petition (C) D. No.24828/2021 in SLP (C) Nos.19561-19562/2019. The Contempt Petitions/Miscellaneous Application arising out of a plea that the persons whose appointment was approved have still not been paid or persons who have been paid have not been paid after 2018. In those very applications, however, other people now seek to get themselves impleaded. In our view, the whole thing rests on the issue as to whether the process has been followed as stated aforesaid or not. If no process has been followed, there can be no flow of monetary benefits. If the process has been followed then both weightage and monetary benefits would arise in their case.
2 With the aforesaid observations, we close all pending applications and Contempt Petitions and make it clear that no further applications will be entertained in these proceedings. The Contempt Petitions and the Miscellaneous Application are closed. Learned counsels present today will be permitted to assist us in the conspectus of the aforesaid. Pending applications stand disposed of. ………………………………………...J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ………………………………………...J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 09, 2021.
3 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miscellaneous Application No.818/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 SANJAY SINGH & ORS.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) ([FOR COMPLIANCE] ) IA NO.66573/2021- APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IA NO.66574/2021- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. WITH Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 10242/2021 SLP [C] NOS.19561- 19562/2019 (XI) Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 11275/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 (III-A) IA No. 58373/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 70899/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) M.A. Diary No(s). 11891/2021 in Civil Appeal No.8300/2016 (III-A) ( FOR MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER ON IA 61452/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 61454/2021 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 421/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 (III-A) IA No. 71344/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIRMED AFFIDAVIT) Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 24828/2021 in SLP [C] NOS.19561-19562/2019 (XI) IA No. 140913/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE CONTEMPT PETITION) Date : 09-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ayushma Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Kirti Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Sakha Ram Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Durga Das Vashisht, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR
4 Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Durga Das Vashisht, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv. R-6 Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. State of UP Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR Mr. Harsh Mahan, Adv. Mr. O.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. T. Parshad, Adv. Mr. Lalit Chahar, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Impleadment Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Miscellaneous Application No.818/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed. The compliance affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.6/U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board has been perused. The selection process has been carried out. Recruitment has been completed. The process of further recruitments dependent on current and prospective vacancies should be an ongoing process which must be carried out by the respondent No.6. The aforesaid takes care of the compliance by respondent No.6. However, there is one concern expressed arising from the fact that only one of the ad hoc teachers was selected.
5 We have put to learned counsel for the petitioners that if the people do not qualify, we can do nothing about it as it is competitive examination. Linked to this issue is the plea that a perusal of the applied and selected ad hoc teachers would show that 1436 ad hoc teachers applied, 126 were given weightage and one was selected. Issue now sought to be raised is as to why more than 1300 teachers were not given any weightage. The aforesaid aspect has to be dealt with by the State of Uttar Pradesh as they had verified the aspect of giving weightage. In this behalf, learned counsel for the State has again drawn our attention to the order dated 26.08.2020 and referred to Section 16E (11) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said Section reads as under: “16E.(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing 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 by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, 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 sub-section shall, in any case, continue
6 beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made]” It is thus, stated that for ad hoc appointments also through a process of direct recruitment, it pre-supposes a selection process. That selection process in the given situation, would have been carried out by the College. The selection process would, needless to say, require at least an advertisement to be published pursuant whereto the applications would have been filed. This would have resulted in a merit list of such persons. Of course, the fact remains that on that ad hoc basis they have continued for over a long period of time. A reading of the details seeks to suggest that only 126 persons have been appointed after selection process, something which is sought to be contradicted by the candidates. To put a quietus to the issue and not let another round of litigation now start on it, we would like the State Government to file an affidavit whether the principle as understood and enunciated by us aforesaid has been followed, i.e. whether the persons who have been appointed on an ad hoc basis after the advertisement and drawing up of the selection list have all been accordingly granted weightage or not. The affidavit be filed within two weeks. List for directions/compliance qua the State Government on 07.12.2021.
7 2.1 Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 10242/2021 in SLP (C) Nos.19561-19562/2019 (XI) 2.2 Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s). 11275/2021 in Civil Appeal NO.8300/2016 (III-A) 2.3 Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 11891/2021 in Civil Appeal No.8300/2016 (III-A) 2.4 Contempt Petition (C) No.421/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016(III-A) 2.5 Contempt Petition (C) Diary No(s).24828/2021 in SLP (C) Nos.19561-19562/2019 Application for permission to file Contempt Petition is rejected in Contempt Petition (C) D. No.24828/2021 in SLP (C) Nos.19561-19562/2019. The Contempt Petitions and the Miscellaneous Application are closed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file]
1 ITEM NO.27+42 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miscellaneous Application No. 818/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 SANJAY SINGH &ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.66573/2021-EXTENSION OF TIME and IA No.66574/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 338/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 (III-A) (IA No. 57181/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 57179/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2021 in C.A. No. 8300/2016 (III-A) (IA No. 62037/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 62035/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 11275/2021 (III-A) (IA No. 58373/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Diary No(s).10242/2021IN SLP© NO.19561 and 19562/2019(XI) (IA NO. 53947/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) (IA NO. 53945/2021- EXEMPTION FROM O.T.) Date : 28-06-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Harsh Mahan, Adv. Mr. O.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Lalit Chahar, Adv. Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR
2 Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Parv Garg, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR For applicant(s) Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Yash Dhingra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. 338/2021 and 339/2021 Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. We are only inclined to examine the limited grievance qua Paragraph 1(9) of the fresh advertisement dated 15-03-2021 to the extent that it provides that the period of service as an ad-hoc teacher will be calculated on the basis of the date of first disbursal of the salary from the State treasury and till the last date of submission of the online applications. We say so as the respondents have not been disbursing the salary. Thus, we fail to understand how disbursal of salary can be the cut-off point. We had directed in terms of Paragraph 11 of our judgment dated 26-08-2020 that benefits should be extended to the employees where appointments have been made in compliance of Section 16-E
3 (sub-section 11) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that once this benefit is given to this category, the period of service for which this payment is to be made is liable to be counted for benefit of weightage and non-payment of the amount under Paragraph 11 cannot be the basis to shift the point of giving weightage. We may note for record that the direction for weightage is in Paragraph 7 (c) and (h) of the same order. We, thus, direct the period of service to be calculated as aforesaid and to the extent Paragraph 1(9) of the advertisement to that extent does not stand and is set-aside. The necessary clarification be issued within a week. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Any other issue which is stated to have also been raised in a subsequent substantive petition filed by the petitioner will be examined in that matter. IA No. 66573 of 2021 in M.A. No. 818/2021 in CIVIL APPEAL No. 8300/2016 We are not inclined to grant the time period as prayed for effectively taking the whole process forward by a year and making it applicable from the next academic session starting in April, 2022.
4 On consideration of the problems which have arisen in the last two months because of Covid-19 pandemic, we grant last opportunity to the respondent to comply with the directions on or before 31-10-2021, failing which they will face the consequences of non-compliance of our orders. If the order is not complied with, the concerned Secretaries shall remain personally present to take the consequences of non- compliance. We, however, make it clear that the time extended is not an extension for the directions contained in Paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 26-08-2020. Diary No. 10242/2021 We have examined the interlocutory applications. The interlocutory applications are disposed of in terms of the order passed in IA No. 66573 of 2021. List the matters for compliance on 09-11-2021. [MANISH ISSRANI] [POONAM VAID] COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)