IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Tarun Chatterji, C. J. and R. K. Agrawal, J.
ANILESH PRATAP SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
Special Appeal 223 Of 1999
Decided On : 05/02/2003
AD-HOC APPOINTMENT - U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 - Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 - [18 of the 1982 Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 18 of the 1982 Act, which mandates that the Management can make ad-hoc appointments only after the vacancy remains vacant for a period of two months from the date the vacancy has been notified to the Commission. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of this provision and concluded that the appointment made before the expiry of the two-month period was contrary to law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was appointed as an ad-hoc Lecturer in Civics in a recognized and aided College under the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921. The appointment was challenged as being illegal due to non-compliance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ad-hoc appointment made before the expiry of the two-month period from the date of notifying the vacancy to the Commission was contrary to law, rendering the appointment wholly illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant as a Lecturer in Civics was in compliance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 18 of the 1982 Act, which mandate a two-month vacancy period before ad-hoc appointments, are mandatory and must be strictly followed. Any appointment made before the expiry of this period is contrary to law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant was contrary to law.
( 1 ) THE present special has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11. 12. 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15293 of 1992, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows : janta Inter College, Barsathi, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the college) is a recognised and aided College under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921. One Sri Karam Raj mishra, lecturer in Civics retired on 30. 6. 1991. The Committee of Management of the said college advertised the vacancy on 4. 7. 1991, in the local newspaper "dainik Manyavar", a newspaper published in the District Jaunpur. The Committee of Management of the College vide resolution passed on 4. 8. 1991, selected the writ petitioner-appellant on the post of Lecturer in civics and issued an appointment letter on 16. 8. 1991. The appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant was made on ad-hoc basis. He joined on the post of Lecturer in Civics in the said College on 19. 8. 1991. When the appellant was not being paid the salary, he approached this court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which as mentioned hereinbefore had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge whose order is under challenge in the present special appeal.
( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed on 16. 8. 1991 as ad-hoc Lecturer in Civics against the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri Karam Raj mishra. The College Authority had sent the requisition under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act ). The vacancy was notified to the Commission and even if the appointment has been made before the expiry of a period of two months from the date of notifying the vacancy to the commission, the appointment would not be bad and illegal, but would take effect after the expiry of the period of two months. He further submitted that the vacancy was advertised in the local newspaper Dainik Manyawar published on 24. 7. 1991, which is a widely circulated newspaper in the District of Jaunpur and if the vacancy was not advertised in two daily newspapers, as per u. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982, then it is only an irregularity, which will not make the appointment void. He further submitted that the requirement of advertisement in two newspapers was directory and not mandatory. He relied upon the following cases :
1. Km. Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, 1988 UPLBEC 397; 2. Ashika Prasad Shukl v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Anr. , 1998 (3) ESC 2006 (All); 3. Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors. , 1994 (2) ESC 345 (All) (FB); 4. Konch Degree College, Jalaun and Ors. v. Ram Sajivan Shukla and Anr. , 1997 (11) SCF 153; and
( 5 ) ARUN Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, 1998 (1) ESC 257 (SC ). 5. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that under Section 18 of the 1982 Act, the Management has been given powers to make appointment by direct recruitment or promotion of a Teacher on purely ad-hoc basis only after the Management had notified the vacancy to the Commission in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act and the post of the Teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months. According to him the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College fell vacant only on 1. 7. 1991 and the appointment of the appellant was made on 16. 8. 1991, even without waiting for the expiry of the period of
Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.