2007 Supreme(SC) 838

2007(4) Supreme 376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ
Veer Kunwar Singh University Ad hoc Teachers Association & Others — Petitioner
versus
The Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission & Others — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1601-1602 of 2004
Decided on : 18-05-2007

IMPORTANT POINTS
The practice to appoint ad hoc teachers must be deprecated.
Qualification to hold the post of lecturer is fixed by the University Grants Commission which has undergone changes post 1993. Neither it is permissible for a University to contravene the directions of the University Grant Commission nor, is it permissible for a court of law to issue a direction contrary thereto
Any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also in violation of the provisions of the Act and the subordinate legislations framed thereunder would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

Headnote:Bihar University Act – Section 58 (1)(a) – Ad hoc appointment – It provides for appointment on temporary basis without following the procedure prescribed in Section 57 of the Act; but such appointments shall not exceed a period of six months – It is now a well-settled principle of law that any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also in violation of the provisions of the Act and the subordinate legislations framed thereunder would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (Paras 26 and 27)

       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Followed.

       (2006) 6 SCC 430; (2006) 7 SCC 684; (2007) 1 SCC 573; (2007) 1 SCC 408; (2007) 1 SCC 373; (2007) 2 SCC 324; (2007) 2 SCC 491; (2007) 2 SCC 502; (2007) 2 SCC 611; 2007 (6) SCALE 453 – Referred to.

       Constitution of India – Articles 141, 142 and 144 – the judgment of the Supreme Court must be respected by all concerned including those who were not parties thereto, in view of the provisions contained in Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitution of India – If the time frame fixed by this Court for complying with this Court’s order was not adhered to, a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act was maintainable.(Para 30).

       Service Law – Appointment – Creation of sanctioned posts is a sine qua non for recruitment – Adherence to the statutory provisions therefor is imperative in character. (Para 35).

       University Law – Appointment of lecturers – Qualification to hold the post of lecturer is fixed by the University Grants Commission which has undergone changes post 1993 – Neither it is permissible for a University to contravene the directions of the University Grant Commission nor, is it permissible for a court of law to issue a direction contrary thereto – No direction to consider the appellants and interveners who held eligibility qualifications of pre-1993 period can be issued at this point of time although the ad hoc teachers have been working for the last 20 years or more pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court or by the High Court from time to time and but for the orders of the superior courts, their services would have been terminated by the University – The practice to appoint ad hoc teachers must be deprecated. (Paras 35, 36 and 38).

       Judicial Discipline – It may be that the High Court should not have constituted a committee but then constitution of a committee was directed with consent However, by consent the statutory provisions cannot be violated. (Para 41).

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order III – Power of an advocate to make concession on behalf of his client has been recognized with certain exception thereto, e.g. when such consent is against law or otherwise not binding on the parties. (Para44).

       (1992) 2 SCC 523; (2002) 3 SCC 39; AIR 1975 SC 1632 – Referred to.

       University law – Ad hoc lecturers – Regular appointment – Direction issued that the respondents in filling up of the vacant posts must take into consideration the cases of all those teachers also who have the requisite qualifications, upon relaxation of age, if permissible by law along with other eligible candidates – However, it would be open to the State of Bihar as also the concerned Universities to forthwith terminate the services of those teachers not working against sanctioned posts or who do not fulfill the requisite educational qualifications or whose services are otherwise not required. (Para 46).

       Facts of the case :

       Appellant No.1 is an Association of ad hoc teachers appointed in various colleges affiliated to Veer Kunwar Singh University.

       The affairs of all the Universities situated in the State of Bihar including that of Appellant No.1 University admittedly are governed by the provisions of the Bihar State University Act, 1976.

       Adhoc appointments indisputably were made by various Universities in the State of Bihar. Ad hoc teachers of Ranchi University had filed writ applications for regularization of their services, which were dismissed by the Patna High Court by a judgment and order dated 22.05.1989. A special leave petition was filed thereagainst, which was marked as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11078 of 1989. A writ petition was also filed before this Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 65 of 1989 inter alia, for a direction to the University to take steps to sanction posts against which adhoc teachers were working for regularization of their services. An order of status quo was granted.

       It was held that appointments of ad hoc teacher like employees were neither good for Universities nor for students.

       Appellant No.1-University was created in the year 1992. On or about 23.11.1993, an advertisement was issued by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for appointment of teachers in different Universities. Allegedly, at that point of time, additional posts were not sanctioned. It is furthermore not in dispute that ad hoc teachers made a representation before the Chancellor for regularization of their services. The University Service Commission had also issued a corrigendum in the said advertisement asking the candidates to appear in the Bihar Eligibility Test (BET) for appointment of teachers in different Universities/Constituent Colleges.

       When the learned counsel for the petitioners before the High Court as also the learned Advocate General agreed to a consent order, the same was accepted by the High Court finding it to be fair and equitable. Appellants were not satisfied therewith. They filed an application for review which by reason of an order dated 23.11.2000 has been dismissed.

       These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 02.02.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court disposing of the writ applications filed by the appellants herein on consent as also an order dated 23.11.2000 passed by another Bench of the said Court refusing to review the said order.

       Findings of the Court :

       Appellants and interveners not having been appointed with due process of law are not entitled to any relief.