1996 JTR(SC) 1016
1996 AIR(SC) 3420 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2993 ; 1996 Supp JT 453 ; 1996 LIC 2064 ; 1996 5 Scale 292 ; 1996 10 SCC 71 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1339 ; 1996 SCR 96 ; 1996 KHC 1710 ; 1996 5 Supreme 497
1996(5) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. --Respondents
I.A. No. 3 In
Writ Petition No. 928 of 1992
Decided on 8-7-1996
Act
Referred
:SERVICE LAW : .
UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION AND SELECTION BOARDS ACT : S.18
A) Under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, ad hoc teacher appointments are temporary and cease upon specified events, such as when recommended candidates join or after one month. This case examines the interplay between such ad hoc appointments and the statutory duty to appoint teachers recommended by the Commission, especially where ad hoc appointments are made due to delays in filing counter affidavits and the resultant non-availability of recommended candidates. The provisions highlight the priority of Commission recommendations and the temporary nature of ad hoc appointments until permanent recommendations are implemented.
B) Key legal principles include the precedence of statutory appointments over ad hoc appointments, the temporary validity of ad hoc teachers under Section 18, and the obligation to replace ad hoc staff with Commission-recommended candidates at the earliest opportunity.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought appointment of 18 teachers recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. Despite repeated adjournments, the respondents failed to file counter affidavits, leading the Court to direct appointment of the 18 teachers. Subsequently, eight teachers were selected, but one did not join, leaving seven teachers in place. Consequently, 11 candidates were not appointed, and the college made ad hoc appointments for these 11 positions.
Findings of Court:
The ad hoc appointments, though not aligned with the rules, remain operative until one of the specified events under Section 18 occurs, such as the joining of recommended candidates or expiry of one month. These appointments are subject to the outcome of the writ petition and must be replaced by the Commissions recommended candidates when available.
Issues:
Whether ad hoc appointments made due to procedural delays comply with statutory rules, and whether such appointments must yield to the recommendations of the Service Commission.
Ratio Decidendi:
Ad hoc appointments under Section 18 are temporary and cease upon the joining of recommended candidates, and must be replaced by Commission-recommended teachers to ensure statutory compliance.
Result:
The application is disposed of, with ad hoc appointees required to be replaced by the Commissions recommended candidates upon their joining.
A) Under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, ad hoc teacher appointments are temporary and cease upon specified events, such as when recommended candidates join or after one month. This case examines the interplay between such ad hoc appointments and the statutory duty to appoint teachers recommended by the Commission, especially where ad hoc appointments are made due to delays in filing counter affidavits and the resultant non-availability of recommended candidates. The provisions highlight the priority of Commission recommendations and the temporary nature of ad hoc appointments until permanent recommendations are implemented.
B) Key legal principles include the precedence of statutory appointments over ad hoc appointments, the temporary validity of ad hoc teachers under Section 18, and the obligation to replace ad hoc staff with Commission-recommended candidates at the earliest opportunity.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought appointment of 18 teachers recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. Despite repeated adjournments, the respondents failed to file counter affidavits, leading the Court to direct appointment of the 18 teachers. Subsequently, eight teachers were selected, but one did not join, leaving seven teachers in place. Consequently, 11 candidates were not appointed, and the college made ad hoc appointments for these 11 positions.
Findings of Court:
The ad hoc appointments, though not aligned with the rules, remain operative until one of the specified events under Section 18 occurs, such as the joining of recommended candidates or expiry of one month. These appointments are subject to the outcome of the writ petition and must be replaced by the Commissions recommended candidates when available.
Issues:
Whether ad hoc appointments made due to procedural delays comply with statutory rules, and whether such appointments must yield to the recommendations of the Service Commission.
Ratio Decidendi:
Ad hoc appointments under Section 18 are temporary and cease upon the joining of recommended candidates, and must be replaced by Commission-recommended teachers to ensure statutory compliance.
Result:
The application is disposed of, with ad hoc appointees required to be replaced by the Commissions recommended candidates upon their joining.
ORDER
It was mentioned in the order dated April 8, 1996 that in spite of adjournment of the case repeatedly, counter affidavit has not been filed. Consequently, this Court directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers as required by the petitioners within the specified time. It is now the admitted position that eight teachers selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission were appointed. One of them had not joined the service. Consequently, seven persons out of 18 have taken charge. Resultantly, 11 candidates were not recommended for appointment by the Commission. The petitioner-college appears to have appointed 11 teachers. It would be obvious that these 11 teachers would be ad hoc appointees pending disposal of the writ petition and they would not and should not claim any right or equity whatsoever pursuant to the said appointment. Under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act 5 of 1982), appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates mentioned therein, namely, (a) when the candidates recommended by the Commission or Board, as the case may be, join the post; (b) when the post of one month preferred to under sub-section (4) of Section 11 express; or (c) 30th day of June following the day of such ad hoc appointment. In that view, the ad hoc appointments though not consistent with Section 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, therefore, not according to rules, would remain operative until either of the events occur. The said arrangements of ad hoc appointment, if the writ petition is disposed of earlier, would be subject to the result in the writ petition. In other words, the ad hoc appointees should be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission and recommended for appointment in accordance with the said Act.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
*******