SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 818

2007(4) Supreme 466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ
Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur — Petitioner
versus
Smt. Vibha Shukla & Ors — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2748 of 2007
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)No. 9072 of 2006]
Decided on : 18-05-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the appellant : Pradeep Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramsh Chandra Mishra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Respondent not having been appointed under the provisions of 1921 Act, section 16(GG) thereof would not apply. Regularisation not being a mode of appointment, she is not entitled to any relief.

Headnote:U.P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959 – Section 108 – Respondent appointed in 1973 on a temporary post and the appointment was extended from time to time – She was not appointed u/s 16-E of 1921 Act – Having regard to the statutory embargo contained in Section 108 of the 1959 Act, each of such extension must be treated to be a fresh appointment – The 1959 Act, being a later Act, ordinarily would prevail over the 1921 Act and therefore any appointment made in terms of Section 108 of the 1959 Act must conform to the provisions contained therein as also the rules framed thereunder. (Paras 14 and 15).

       UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Section 16 (GG) – Respondent having not been appointed in conformity with the provisions of the 1921 Act, Section 16-GG thereof has no application in her case. (Paras 15 and 17).

       2007 (5) SCALE 452 – Relied upon.

       (2001) 2 SCC 423 – Distinguished.

       Service Law – Regularisation – It is trite that regularization is not a mode of appointment – The impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are not sustainable having been erroneously passed. (Paras 20 and 22).

       (2006) 4 SCC 1; 2007 (6) SCALE 453 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       Respondent No. 1 was a Sports Teacher appointed on or about 21.7.1973 for a period of one year purported to be in terms of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959. Her services were extended from time to time. By an order dated 18.08.1980, her services were terminated on payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. She filed an application before the UP Public Services Tribunal questioning the said order of termination dated 18.08.1980 and claiming regularization of her services purported to be in terms of Section 16(GG) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Tribunal allowed the said application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

       Findings of the Court :

       Respondent not having been appointed under the provisions of 1921 Act, section 16(GG) thereof would not apply. Regularisation not being a mode of appointment, she is not entitled to any relief.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the judgment and order dated 18.01.1991 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, (for short, ‘the Tribunal), was dismissed.

3.Respondent No. 1 was a Sports Teacher appointed on or about 21.7.1973 for a period of one year purported to be in terms of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959, (for short ‘the 1959 Act’). Her services were extended from time to time. By reason of an order dated 18.08.1980, her services were terminated on payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. She filed an application before the UP Public Services Tribunal, inter alia, questioning the said order of termination dated 18.08.1980 and claiming regularization of her services purported to be in terms of Section 16(GG) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short ‘the 1921 Act’). The Tribunal allowed the said application. As indicated hereinbefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

4.The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is the applicability of the 1921 Act vis-à-vis the 1959 Act.

5.The 1921 Act was enacted to establish a Board to take the place of the Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the United Provinces, and to prescribe the courses therefor. Appointment in terms of the said Act is permissible only upon furnishing information in that behalf to the District Inspector of Schools as laid down under Section 16-E(2) thereof. A teacher of an institution is required to be selected by a Selection Committee constituted thereunder. The Committee of Management of the institution is empowered to appoint candidates out of the list of teachers recommended in order of preference. The names of the selected candidates, as far as practicable, should consist of three candidates for each post found by the Selection Committee to be suitable for appointment. It is required to communicate its recommendations together with such list to the Committee of Management in terms of Sub-section 6 of Section 16-E of the 1921 Act. However, sub- section (11) thereof provides for a non obstante clause, in terms whereof, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee. The proviso appended thereto in no uncertain terms states that such an appointment shall not continue for a period of more than six months or beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made.

6.Section 16-F of the Act prescribes the manner in which the Selection Committee is to be constituted. Section 16(FF) of the Act provides for the terms and conditions of service of the Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees.

7.The Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh inserted Section 16(GG) in the 1921 Act by the UP Act No. 5 of 1977, which came into force with effect from 21.4.1977. It reads as under :

“16(GG): Regularization of appointment of ad hoc teachers: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16_E, 16-1 and 16-FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (Both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section.”

8.The 1






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top