IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 158 of 2008 Jai Prakash Singh ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…….. Respondents. WITH Special Appeal No. 196 of 2008 Jai Prakash Pandey ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…….. Respondents. Present: Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for appellant -Jai Prakash Singh. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent-Committee of Management. Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate for respondent-Jai Prakash Pandey. Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge JUDGMENT Date: 26.08.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) These appeals are against a common judgment and order, and accordingly, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Shri Jai Prakash Singh was appointed by the respondent- School in the year 1983, whereas Shri Jai Prakash Pandey is working in the institution since 1990. The fact remains that the school in question was permanently recognized in 1987. In order to discharge obligations of such permanent recognition, the School published an advertisement for filling up the sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers. 2 This advertisement was published in 1989. The teachers, who were then working including Jai Prakash Singh, responded to the said advertisement. After selection was completed, amongst others, Jai Prakash Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher. In 1991, the School became entitled to grant-in-aid. When the School became entitled to grant-in-aid, a question cropped up, whether Jai Prakash Pandey is also entitled to the benefit of such grant. The matter was considered by the Basic Education Officer, who by an order recorded that Jai Prakash Pandey is entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid but Jai Prakash Singh is not entitled to the same, inasmuch as, in 1989, when he was appointed pursuant to the selection after he responded to the advertisement, the Manager of the School was the uncle of Jai Prakash Singh. This decision was assailed in a writ petition. The writ court disposed of the matter by directing the Director of Education to look into the claims of Jai Prakash Singh and Jai Prakash Pandey. By the order impugned in the writ petition, on which the judgment and order under appeal has been rendered, it was held by the Director of Education that Jai Prakash Singh, having been appointed after selection, was entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid but Jai Prakash Pandey, having not been appointed after being selected, is not entitled to the benefits of grant-in-aid. Jai Prakash Pandey, therefore, approached this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by the judgment and order under appeals, has rejected the claim of Jai Prakash Pandey that his claim is covered by the grant-in-aid and hence an appeal has been preferred by Jai Prakash Pandey. At the same time, the learned Judge, noting that the appointment of Jai Prakash Singh in 1989 was contrary to the expressed provisions of the Rules, held appointment of Jai Prakash Singh, being contrary to law, cannot be sustained, and accordingly, he too is not covered by the benefits of grant-in-aid. Hence a separate appeal has been preferred by Shri Jai Prakash Singh. 3. On behalf of Jai Prakash Pandey, it was contended that the undisputed fact remains that his client served this School 3 continuously since 1990 and now he has become over aged, and accordingly, is not entitled to be appointed in any other government post. It was submitted that having regard to long services rendered by Jai Prakash Pandey, his case should be treated with compassion. The learned counsel for Jai Prakash Singh submitted that in so far as his client is concerned, he was appointed in 1983 and thereafter was re- appointed in 1989. It was submitted by him that in 1983 his uncle was not the Manager, nor was associated with the Committee of Management of the School. It was submitted that although in 1989 his uncle was Manager of the Committee of Management of the School but the fact remains that the re-appointment of 1989 was in fact a continuation of the appointment of 1983, and accordingly, at the best it can be said that an irregular appointment was given to Jai Prakash Singh and not an illegal appointment. The learned counsel further submitted that Jai Prakash Singh was duly appointed after selection in 1989 and continuously rendered services until today and his appointment having been upheld by the Director, School Education, this Court erred in holding that Jai Prakash Singh is not covered by the benefits of grant-in-aid. 4. The appointment of Jai Prakash Singh given in 1983 stood superseded by the appointment given to him after selection in 1989. The appointment of Jai Prakash Singh given in 1989 was approved upon the School applying to the appropriate authority of the State for obtaining approval thereon. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it should be deemed that Jai Prakash Singh could claim the benefits of grant-in-aid on the basis of his appointment given in 1989 and not on the basis of appointment given in 1983. Admittedly, the 1989 appointment was contrary to law made by the State to that effect. That being the situation, it is difficult for us to hold that the appointment of Jai Prakash Singh was an irregular appointment and, accordingly, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a person has worked for a long period of time after having been irregularly appointed, his appointment should not be 4 interfered; does not apply to the case of Jai Prakash Singh. In so far as Jai Prakash Pandey is concerned, he did not get any appointment, inasmuch as in 1990, when Jai Prakash Singh was purported to have been appointed by the School, the School was obliged to discharge its obligations in regard to appointment of Assistant Teachers, as contained in the rules governing the subject. In the matter of giving appointment to Jai Prakash Pandey in 1990 the School did not discharge such obligations. Accordingly, it is not possible for us to hold that Jai Prakash Pandey held an appointment entitling him to the benefits of grant-in-aid. 5. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for us to interfere with the judgment and order under these appeals. 6. As aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellants requested us to have compassion in the matter of deciding the appeals. The compassion sought from us cannot be displayed by this Court, but it shall be open to the State to take notice of the predicament of Jai Prakash Singh and Jai Prakash Pandey and to do whatever is required to be done in respect of them, and for doing so, neither this order nor the order under these appeals shall stand in the way. 7. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. ( V.K. Bist,J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 26.08.2010 P. Singh