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

2003 Supreme(All) 2147

M.KATJU, U.PANDEY
MALVIKA SHEKHAR – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.RAI CHAUDHURI, Shashi Nandan

M. KATJU, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioners appointment dated 14. 6. 2003 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) shows that the petitioner was appointed on Mandeya (honorarium basis ). The Mandeya (Honorarium basis) is a purely contractual appointment which confers the appointee no right as held by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Alok Singh v. State of U. P. , 2002 (2) ESC 427. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, before parting this case, we are constrained to observe that a lot of cases are coming before us where we find that appointments have been made on Mandeya (Honorarium basis ). The appointment of lecturers in the Degree/p. G. Colleges of the State can only be done in accordance with the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, as amended from time to time, and the rules and regulations made thereunder. There is no provision in that Act to make an appointment on Mandeya (Honorarium basis ). In fact Section 12 of the Act states "every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provision of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof sha







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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top