SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN, KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.
Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association, Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and others, Respondents
Writ Petn. (Civil) No.873 of 1990, with Contempt Petn.No.6 of 1991 and Civil Appeals Nos.309 of 373 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.13131-95 of 1990), Dt.29.1.1992.
AND
B.R. Parineeth and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka and others, Respondents
Employment and Service – Termination from service - seek regularisation of their services - appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations, are comparatively recent innovations to the service jurisprudence. They are individual problem to begin with, become a family problem with passage of time and end with human problem in court of law. It is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in society with little or no approach even though better qualified, more meritorious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any extraneous reason ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. Or the rules or circulars issued by the department itself empower the authority to do so as a stop-gap arrangement – Held, No material has been brought on record to show that any action was taken prior to decision by the High Court against any institution for not following the reservation policy. To deny therefore the benefit of selection held on agreement by the respondents is being unjust to such selectees. Further the State of Karnataka appears to have been regularizing services of ad hoc teachers. Till now it has regularised services of contract lecturers, local candidates, University lecturers, Engineering colleges lecturers etc. It may not furnish any basis for petitioners to claim that the State may be directed to issue similar order regularising. Services of teachers of privetly managed colleges. All the same such policy decisions of government in favour of one or the other set of employees of sister department are bound to raise hopes and expectations in employees of other departments. That is why it is incumbent on governments to be more circumspect in taking such decisions - Petition allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petitioners, temporary teachers appointed for short durations, sought regularization of their services, claiming they had been employed continuously for years with minimal breaks (!) .
The Court observed that ad hoc appointments are often exploited by managements to bypass rules, leading to unfair treatment of qualified teachers and widespread misuse, especially in private aided colleges (!) (!) .
The existing regulations for temporary appointments in educational institutions are inadequate and have been exploited, resulting in employees being paid lower salaries and being at risk of arbitrary termination (!) (!) .
The Court criticized the practice of paying fixed salaries lower than those of regular teachers, deeming it arbitrary and unconstitutional, and declared such payment methods invalid prospectively (!) (!) .
The Court struck down the requirement of a one-day break in service between appointments, finding it unconstitutional (!) .
It emphasized that teachers appointed temporarily should be paid salaries comparable to regular teachers and should be continued in service until their purpose is served or regular selection is completed (!) .
The Court directed managements to fill permanent vacancies according to rules and warned against arbitrary termination of temporary teachers due to delays, emphasizing the state's responsibility to enforce proper appointment procedures (!) .
The Court acknowledged that some teachers had been regularized based on court orders and that denying benefits solely due to reservation policies or other administrative reasons was unjust (!) (!) .
It mandated that teachers who have worked for three years or more should not be terminated and should be absorbed into regular posts when vacancies arise, with additional posts created if regular selections have been made (!) (!) .
The Court directed that all temporary teachers who have undergone selection processes should be paid salaries equivalent to permanent teachers and be retained during vacations (!) (!) .
The judgment aimed to curb the misuse of temporary appointments, ensure fair treatment of teachers, and uphold constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness in employment practices (!) (!) .
The petition was ultimately allowed, and the Court issued specific directions to the respondents to implement these principles (!) .
Costs were awarded to the petitioners from the State of Karnataka (!) .
These points summarize the Court's reasoning, findings, and directives concerning the regularization and fair treatment of temporary teachers in educational institutions.
JUDGMENT
R. M. SAHAI, J.:- Teachers appointed temporarily for three months or less . by privately managed degree colleges receiving cent per cent grants-in-aid, controlled administratively and financially by the Education Department of the State of Karnataka, seek regularisation of their services by invoking principle of equitable estoppel arising from implied assurance due to their continuance, as such, for years with a break of a day or two every three months. Another basis for direction to regularise is founded on denial of similar treatment by the State as has been extended to contract teachers and local teachers appointed in Government or vocational colleges. Payment of fixed salary instead of regular emoluments for eight months in a year and that too for number of years is yet another grievance.
2. Ad hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations, are comparatively recent innovations to the service jurisprudence. They are individual problem to begin with, become a family problem with passage of time and end with human problem in court of law. It is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in society with little or no approach even though better qualified, more meritorious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any extraneous reason ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. Or the rules or circulars issued by the department itself empower the authority to do so as a stop-gap arrangement. The former is an abuse of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuine emergency measure the Courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence. Latter gives rise to equities which have bothered Courts every now and then. Malady appears to be widespread in educational institutions as provisions for temporary or ad hoc appointments have been exploited by the managements of private aided colleges to their advantage by filling it, on one hand, with persons of own choice, at times without following the procedure, and keeping the teachers exposed to threat of termination, on the other, with all evil consequences flowing out of it. Any institution run by State fund but managed privately is bound to suffer from such inherent drawbacks. In State of Karnataka it is basically State created problem due to defective rule and absence of any provision to effectively deal with such a situation.
3. What is surprising is that till today the State has not been able to bring out a comprehensive legislation on such an important aspect as education and the appointment, selection, promotion, transfer, payment of salary etc. of teachers is regulated by Government orders issued from time to time. Since 1980 it is governed by an order issued by Education and Youth Services Department of the State of Karnataka on 3rd October, 1981. Clause 5 of the Order reads as under :
"Any appointment for a period of three months or less in a College shall be made, subject to approval of the Director within one month from the date of appointment by the Management or such authority as the Management by Order may specify in that behalf. Such temporary appointments may, however, be continued for a further period of not more than three months, with one days break when selection through the Selection Committee is likely to take time. The Director may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse approval for the said appointment and the services of the person so appointed shall be terminated forthwith."
4. Appointments for more than three months is to be by a regularly constituted selection committee under Clause 4 of the order. But if it is for three months or less then the appointment c
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.