Back
S.B. Sinha, J.
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan Joshi & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3540 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12124 of 2006)
Decided on : 13-05-2008.
U.P. Public Service Commission Rules, 1979 - Rule 5 - U.P. Regularization Rules, 1979 - Services of 355 - Employees on posts – Jurisdiction - First Respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Lecturer in Government P.G. College by State of Utter Pradesh through Vice-Chancellor University on or about said College was declared as Campus College of University - All Lecturers including the first respondent were continued and treated on deputation with University cutoff date wherefore was fixed - Cases of nine Lecturers including the first respondent who had been working on deputation were left out - It is contended that one who had also been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer on and thus being junior to first respondent was regularized - Representations were made by respondents and others - Directorate of Higher Education Uttar Pradesh asked the Vice- Chancellor of the University to forward list of said Lecturers pursuant whereto services of nine Lecturers including respondent were regularized by an order - Held, Question which was raised was a question of interpretation - It was in the aforementioned situation, this Court held that all employees were not required to be impleaded as a party - In that case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented - It was stated this case appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in background of any particular fact controverter by that person against whom claim is made - Contention is that criteria adopted by Union Government in drawing up impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and relief is claimed against Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing already drawn up valid list and for quashing impugned seniority list - Relief is claimed against Union Government and not against any particular individual - In this background court consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be imp leaded as respondent - Appeal is disposed of
The provided legal document, which concerns a dispute over inter se seniority among lecturers following regularization of ad hoc appointments under U.P. Regularisation Rules, 1979, and related service rules, does not contain any observations by the Supreme Court on the role of an Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings, the concept of an Inquiry Officer acting as a "delegate" of the Disciplinary Authority, limitations on recommending punishment, or bias arising from such recommendations. The judgment instead addresses issues such as the necessity of impleading affected parties in writ petitions challenging seniority lists [1000430190015][1000430190016][1000430190017][1000430190018], the applicability of regularization rules and subsequent service rules like Rule 20 of the Uttaranchal Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules [1000430190013][1000430190014], and the remand of the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court [1000430190018]. No portion of the document pertains to disciplinary inquiries or punishment recommendations.
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Inter se seniority amongst the teachers of Kumaon University is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.71 of 2004). Before adverting to the aforementioned question, we may notice the factual matrix involved in the matter.
3. First Respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Lecturer in Government P.G. College, Almora by the State of Utter Pradesh through Vice-Chancellor, Kumaon University on or about 22.9.1975. The said College was declared as the Campus College of the University. All Lecturers including the first respondent were continued and treated on deputation with the University; the cut off date wherefor was fixed 16.8.1977.
4. The State of Utter Pradesh framed U.P. Regularization Rules, 1979, the relevant provisions whereof reads as under : “(1). Any person who
(i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before 1.1.1977 and is continuing in service.
(ii) Possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment, and
(iii) Has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service.
Shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders."
5. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said Rules, services of 355 ad hoc Lecturers were regularized. However, the cases of nine Lecturers including the first respondent, who had been working on deputation, were left out. It is contended that one Savita (Mohan) Dhondiyal who had also been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer on 17.4.1975 and, thus, being junior to the first respondent was regularized.
6. Representations were made by the respondents and others. The Directorate of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh asked the Vice- Chancellor of the University to forward the list of the said Lecturers pursuant whereto, services of nine Lecturers including the respondent were regularized by an order dated 11.7.1980, stating :
"The appointing authority in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 5 of the Regularisation of Ad hoc Employees on the posts within the jurisdiction of the U.P. Public Service Commission Rules, 1979 issued by the Department of Personnel vide its Notification No.19/8/75[1] dated 14th May, 1979, and in view of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted for regularization of the ad hoc lecturers working in various Government Colleges under the Directorate of Education prior to 1st January, 1977 in the pay scale of 700-1600, hereby regularizes appointments of the lecturers with effect from the date of issuance of this order and they are being given temporarily regular
appointments on the posts of Lecturers w.e.f. 11th July, 1980. However, the seniority of these lecturers shall be according to their Serial number given in the enclosed Annexure and they will be junior to those lecturers who have been regularized and appointed prior to the date of regular appointment of these lecturers."
Aggrieved by the said order, they made a representation.
7. By an order dated 9.6.1988, the services of the r
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
