SUNIL MANI TRIPATHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

1

                                     Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:26932

                                          Judgment reserved on 7.2.2025

                                                 Delivered on 27.2.2025

Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1112 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sunil Mani Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Naman Mishra,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 580 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jyoti Prakash Mishra
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Ashish
Kumar Nagvanshi, J.N. Maurya, learned Additional C.S.C. and Standing
Counsel.

2. Petitioners have set up a case that they participated in a selection
process to the posts of Lecturer Hindi in the respondent institution
which commenced with an advertisement issued on 10.4.1997 and
published in two newspapers namely Tarun Mitra and Dainik Jaunpur.

3. Petitioners have appeared before the selection committee and on
basis of their respective higher quality point marks they got selected as
L.T. Grade Teacher and their respective appointment letters were issued
2

on 16.9.1997 and on the same date, DIOS, Jaunpur granted approval
and thereafter petitioners joined and remained working on the said
post.

4. It is further case of petitioners that due to certain dispute of rival
Committee of Management of concerned College, their salary was not
paid, they approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition
No.52360 of 2000, wherein an interim order was passed on 11.12.2000
with a direction to pay their salaries. However, said order was not
complied with, therefore, a contempt proceedings were also initiated
and finally on 14.1.2004, the DIOS, Jaunpur has issued an order to the
Manager of the institution directing him to release salary in favour of
petitioners and thereafter their salaries were released also.

5. During the interaggnum period, the Writ Petition No.52360 of 2000
was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.12.2013 and
thereafter a restoration application was also filed, but according to the
averments made in paragraph 21 of present writ petition, said
restoration application despite being listed on several times, was not
taken up for final hearing.

6. Consequently, the DIOS, Jaunpur vide order dated 17.8.2019 has
stopped the salary of the petitioners from July, 2019 and later on vide
order dated 24.3.2021, above referred restoration application was
allowed and Writ Petition No.52360 of 2000 was restored to its original
number and interim order also restored.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that thereafter
orders were passed by the DIOS, Jaunpur as well as by higher officers
to release the salary as well as arrears of salary and after much
persuation finally arrears of salary were also paid to them.

8. In the above background, Writ Petition No.52630 of 2000 was
allowed vide order dated 4.8.2023 with a direction to respondents to
3

ensure payment of salary of petitioners continuously as well as for the
period between 1.7.2019 to 28.7.2021 taking note that said writ petition
was filed two decades ago, with a further direction to the concerned
Regional Level Committee to consider case of respective petitioners for
regularization in terms of Section 33-G of U.P. Secondary Education
Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, of
1982’).

9. In aforesaid circumstances, case of each petitioners was considered
for regularization by the Regional Level Committee and since their
appointments were dehors of relevant provisions, therefore, their claim
for regularization was rejected being not complied with conditions of
Section 33 (chha) of Act of 1982.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at a belated
stage, to put petitioners’ appointment under doubt was contrary to the
law as discussed in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2024 INSC 1034,
that long period of service be protected and merely on basis of certain
irregularities, claim for regularization may not be rejected.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the
requirement, advertisement was required to be issued in two
newspapers one having circulation at local level and other being at State
level.

12. According to the Senior Counsel, the newspaper Tarun Mitra, has a
wide circulation at State level, whereas other newspaper i.e. Dainik
Jaunpur has local circulation at District Jaunpur, therefore, reasons
assigned in the impugned orders were not justified and impugned
orders may be set-aside.

13. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General and learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel have supported
the impugned order and submitted that basic condition of advertisement
                                    4

                                    was not fulfilled and in view of directions passed by co-ordinate Bench
                                    of this Court in Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, Neutral
                                    Citation No.2024:AHC:159359, along with other connected cases for
                                    purpose of consideration of regularization, essential conditions under
                                    the relevant provisions must be satisfied and as the same were not
                                    complied with, therefore, claim of the petitioners was rightly rejected.

                                    14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

                                    15. It it not under dispute that an advertisement is required to be
                                    published in two newspapers, one having circulation at district level and
                                    other at State level.

                                    16. As referred above, a newspaper namely, Dainik Jaunpur has
                                    circulation at District level and so far as other newspaper i.e. Tarun
                                    Mitra is concerned, it has circulation in Delhi and NCR Region, therefore,
                                    selection process was not proper.

                                    17. Even though their appointments were not proper still as referred
                                    above, the petitioners on strength of an interim order have worked for
                                    almost 27 years, without any complaint and were given benefit also,
                                    and therefore, in view of Jaggo (supra) and Radhey Shyam Yadav &
                                    Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 10, such appointments
                                    could be protected. The Court also takes note that petitioners are now
                                    about 61 years, therefore, in the interest of justice, impugned orders
                                    dated 5.9.2024 and 17.12.2024 are hereby set-aside and its legal
                                    consequence will follow.

                                    18. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

                                    Order Date :- 27.2.2025

                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad