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

1997 Supreme(All) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
SUSHILA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
ADMINISTRATOR, NAGAR NIGAM - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 24479 Of 1994
Decided On : 08/05/1997

Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Khare, RAVI KIRAN JAIN

Reservation is not applicable for a single post of Principal and the senior most teacher is entitled to promotion.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - PROMOTION - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - RESERVATION - PRINCIPAL - SENIOR MOST TEACHER: 1. Ad hoc appointee is not eligible for promotion when substantive post holders are available. 2. Reservation is not applicable for a single post of Principal. 3. Senior most teacher means a teacher who is senior in the seniority list having been appointed in a substantive vacancy and regularised.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a lecturer in a girls' school run by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as ad hoc Principal, claiming that she was the senior most teacher and entitled to promotion. Respondent No. 2 contended that she was appointed on account of her being a member of a backward class and that reservation was applicable.

Finding of the Court:

1. The court found that the respondent No. 2 was an ad hoc appointee and had not been regularised. 2. The court held that reservation was not applicable to the post of Principal as it was a single post and that the senior most teacher was entitled to promotion.

Issues: 1. Whether an ad hoc appointee is eligible for promotion when substantive post holders are available? 2. Whether reservation is applicable for a single post of Principal? 3. Who is considered a senior most teacher?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an ad hoc appointee is not eligible for promotion when substantive post holders are available, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. 2. The court held that reservation is not applicable for a single post of Principal, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. 3. The court held that a senior most teacher is a teacher who is senior in the seniority list having been appointed in a substantive vacancy and regularised.

Final Decision: The court quashed the appointment of respondent No. 2 as ad hoc Principal and directed the respondents to give appointment on ad hoc basis as Principal to the petitioner forthwith.

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) SRI R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two very interesting questions, namely whether for the purposes of recruitment in respect of only one post, the provision for reservation provided for backward classes is applicable. Secondly, whether ad hoc appointee is eligible for promotion when the persons holding substantive post eligible for promotion, are available.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the points it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts which are as follows.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on 15-7-1964 in Physics in M. G. Intermediate college, Civil Lines, Kanpur run by the Nagarpalika, Kanpur, now known as Nagar Nigam, kanpur. She was confirmed on 30th June 1977. The Nagar Nigam had been runing four Girls schools. A combined seniority list of all the Girls Schools was prepared. In the seniority list the petitioner was placed at serial number, below one Smt. R. R. Srivastava, who after being promoted as Principal had retired on 30th June 1994. By reason thereof the petitioner was the senior most lecturer in all the four colleges, whereas the respondent No. 2 was placed at Serial number 43 in the said seniority list, on being appointed ad hoc lecturer in Hindi on 17-7-1989. The petitioner alleges that she is still continuing as ad hoc lecturer in Hindi and her services have not been regularised. In the resultant vacancy occurring due to the retirement of the said Smt. R. R. Srivastava, Principal, respondent No. 2, was appointed as ad hoc Principal by en order dated 29-6-1994, issued by the Administrator, Nagar Nigam. Aggrieved the petitioner had made several representations to he appropriate authorities. But no steps have been taken on the said representation. The petitioner, therefore, has come up with the present writ petition, for quashing of the said order dated 29-6-1994 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and direction to promote and appoint the petitioner as ad hoc Principal.

( 4 ) SRI Jain contends that the petitioner is recipitant of best teacher award and admittedly senior most teacher possessing requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of Principal. He also refers to the Government Order dated 12-7-1978, by which the post of Principal was excluded from the purview of reservation. By referring to different provision of various Acts he contends that the post of Principal being only one, the prevision for reservation is not applicable. He also refers to three decisions In support of his contention with which I shall deal at appropriate stage.

( 5 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 en the other hand contends that the appointment of respondent No. 2 having not been challenged and no particulars of the manner by which the respondent No. 2 was appointed, having been disclosed, the petitioner can not take the point that ad hoc appointee is not eligible for promotion. He secondly contends that in the meantime the petitioner was appointed as Principal in Intermediate College, under Nagar Nigam, kanpur, therefore the writ petition has become infructuous. According to him by reason of section 33-A of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Beards Act, 1982 the services of respondent No. 2 has automatically been regularised and confirmed. Therefore the question of ad hoc appointment does not survive. Thirdly, he contends that there being six posts of Principal in six different schools run by the Nagar Nigam, it is not a case of single pest. Over and above, reservation is also applicable in a single post as well. He also refers to various provisions of law on few of such decisions in support of his contention, with which I shall be dealing with at appropriate time.

( 6 ) FOR the sake of convenience the question as to whether the respondent No. 2 was an ad hoc oppointee is taken up first. The respondent No. 1 Contonment Board, on the other hand in its counter-affidavit has made out a case that the respondent No. 2 was given appointme

















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top