1. Appointment under Section 3(3) of University Teachers and Officers Act, 1974 — Termination of ad hoc service. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1929
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : Ruma Pal
Chandgi Ram
Versus
University Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 7043 , 7044 of 2000
Date of Decision : 12/1/00
Ad hoc appointments must be temporary stop-gap arrangements. A subsequent Memorandum of Understanding between a government and an institution cannot obstruct a recruitment process already initiated for sanctioned posts, especially where the institution failed to fill vacancies for a prolonged period.
Headnote:(A) University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 - Section 3(3) - Ad hoc appointments - Culture of ad hocism - Ad hoc appointments are intended as stop-gap arrangements for short periods; continuing them for years deteriorates the fiber of educational institutions, thwarts the appointment of regular and competent candidates, and encourages internal struggles (Para 7).
(B) Administrative Law - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - Selection process - An MOU issued after the initiation of a selection process cannot act as an impediment to filling sanctioned posts that have already been advertised (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
An appellant was appointed on an ad hoc basis to two posts under the relevant Act for short durations. Following the termination of services, the respondent university initiated a recruitment process for regular appointments. The university later contended that a Memorandum of Understanding with the state government prohibited the filling of vacant posts without prior government sanction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the university created the situation by failing to fill vacancies for a long period. The MOU in question was formulated after the advertisements for the posts were already issued; therefore, it cannot be an obstacle to completing the selection process, particularly as this defense was not raised before the High Court.
Issues: Whether a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding between the state government and the university can prohibit the filling of a sanctioned post for which the recruitment process had already commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: When the process of filling vacancies started long before the existence of a restrictive MOU, such an MOU cannot impede the completion of those specific appointments. The court emphasized that the practice of prolonged ad hocism must be denounced to maintain the standards of institutions.
Result: Appeals disposed of with directions to the university to conduct interviews and complete the selection process by the stipulated timeline.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought continuance claiming appointment legal under Section 3(3); University argued appointment was ad hoc and period expired. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Delay in regular selection breeds ad hocism; institutions must fill vacancies promptly to avoid compromising standards and court litigation. (Para 7 )
4. An MOU restricting filling of posts cannot impede a selection process that began before the MOU was issued. (Para 7 )
5. Directed University to complete selection process by specified deadlines and allowed appellant to participate. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can an administrative MOU bar the filling of a vacant post after the selection process has already commenced?
No. An MOU issued after the selection process began cannot be an impediment to completing the selection. (Para 7 )
7. What is the court's view on prolonged ad hoc appointments in educational institutions?
Prolonged ad hocism deteriorates institutional standards and is deprecated; ad hoc appointments should only be for a short stop-gap period. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
A.P.MISRA, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant has sought for a direction for his continuance in the post of Director, Students Advisory Bureau and the post of Programme Officer. The case of the appellant is that he has been appointed under Section 3(3) of the University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 initially for a period of three months. The said appointment was extended on 10/2/1997 for a further period of six months. Thereafter on 5/3/1997 he was also appointed on ad hoc basis under Section 3(3) of the said Act as Programme Officer in the Department of Adult Education for a period of 90 days only. However, on 6/6/1997 the respondent terminated the services of the appellant on the said posts on the ground that his continuance on the same post was contrary to the law and further his period of appointment has already expired. In other words, the submission on behalf of the University is that this appointment was on ad hoc basis which could only be for a short period. The vacancy on the aforesaid post, as per submission for the appellant is since 1995 and till regular appointment is made he should be permitted to work. Submission is, his appointment cannot be said to be illegal as it was made under Section 3(3) of the said Act. It seems, during pendency of this matter before the High Court, the University authorities initiated proceedings to fill up this post by advertising for its selection. The High Court in appeal in this regard made the following observations:
"SINCE we have been informed that the recruitment process for appointment of regularly selected candidate as against sanctioned post is currently going on, the impugned order dated 7/5/1998 passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be eligible to participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates, who have applied for such posts, which they were holding as on the date of their termination and if they are declared successful in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, they may be appointed by the University of Rajasthan."
(3) WE may point out here, the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging his termination was dismissed, holding that the appointment was made without there being a sanctioned post.
(4) THE appellant aggrieved by this order passed by the High Court, preferred the present appeals.
(5) EARLIER when the matter was taken up, this Court desired to know the shortest period within which the University could fill up these posts through regular selection, This was because this process of selection seems to have taken too long, still without any definite date being fixed for the selection. This is recorded in our order dated 31/3/2000. We adjourned this case for the learned Counsel for the University to find this. Learned Counsel for the University, Mr. Manoj Swarup on 7/4/2000 stated that for selection on these posts, advertisement has already taken place and the process of selection would be concluded by the end of June 2000. In view of this, we deferred the hearing of this matter and directed it to be listed in July, 2000. On 21/7/2000 Counsel for the University sought further time to find out the latest position in this regard. When the matter was taken up on 25/8/2000, learned Counsel for the University placed a different picture by stating that the selection could only take place after prior sanction from the State Government. On the same day notice was issued by this Court to the State Government to expedite the matter. Thereafter on 5/9/2000 even though notice was issued earlier, as aforesaid, one weeks time was granted to the appellant to make formal application for its impleadment. The matter was adjourned with the direction by this Court for the service of notice on the standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan. He was served on 21/10/2000.
(6) THE matte
