Ruby Tomar vs. State Of U.P.

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11053 of 2021

Petitioner :- Ruby Tomar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.

The sole relief claimed in the instant writ petition reads thus:-

"1. a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioners, treating them in the category of 'ad-hoc teachers' and also extend the benefit of weightage as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) in the recruitment going to be initiated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.3.2021."

It appears that the petition was initially preferred challenging the conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondents which provided that the period of service as an adhoc teacher will be calculated on the basis of the date of first disbursal of the salary from State treasury. That issue fell for consideration by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016 [Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others]. Dealing with a misc. application in the pending Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court on 28 June 2021 observed as follows:-

"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 adhoc 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 (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."

Pursuant to the aforesaid clarification, the petitioners were admittedly permitted to participate in the selection process. The respondents concededly and even otherwise are duty bound to provide and extend such benefits to ad-hoc teachers including the petitioner here as may flow from the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh. In view of the aforesaid nothing further survives in this petition.

The writ petition shall stand disposed of.

Order Date :- 2.9.2021 Rakesh