Back
1996 Supreme(All) 241
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.N.Agarwal
PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 27 February 1996
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 20128 of 1992
Ashok Khare, Raj Kumar Jain,
The Management of a recognized institution can make ad hoc appointments in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, and the procedure prescribed under Paragraph 5 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981.
Headnote:
AD HOC APPOINTMENT - U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION AND SELECTION BOARDS ACT, 1982 - SECTION 18 - U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 1981 - PARAGRAPH 5 - PROCEDURE FOR AD HOC APPOINTMENT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade on an ad hoc basis in a recognized institution, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay their salaries from the date of their appointment. The institution had notified the vacancies to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Commission), but the Commission had not recommended any candidates. The institution advertised the vacancies and conducted a selection process, appointing the petitioners on 15th/16th July 1991. The District Inspector of Schools (respondent No. 2) was informed about the appointments and requested to approve them. However, the State Government had imposed a ban on future selections by private institutions, which was later lifted. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the ban and were allowed to function on their posts. The State Government filed an appeal, and the Supreme Court held that the State Government could not impose a blanket ban on appointments by private institutions. The matter was remanded to consider whether the detailed procedure for making ad hoc appointments by the institution's Management had been followed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government did not have the power to impose a blanket ban on appointments in private institutions. The Management could make ad hoc appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the procedure prescribed under Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was not inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and could be followed in making ad hoc appointments. However, the Court found that the Management had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Paragraph 5 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, which required the District Inspector of Schools to invite applications, select candidates based on quality points, and allot them to institutions.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the power to impose a blanket ban on appointments in private institutions. 2. Whether the Management could make ad hoc appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Whether the procedure prescribed under Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 4. Whether the Management had followed the procedure prescribed under Paragraph 5 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government did not have the power to impose a blanket ban on appointments in private institutions. 2. The Management could make ad hoc appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. The procedure prescribed under Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was not inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and could be followed in making ad hoc appointments. 4. The Management had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Paragraph 5 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, subject to the directions given by the Court. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to hold a fresh selection by making a new advertisement within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him by the petitioners. If the petitioners applied for appointment and were again selected, they were to be paid the salary from the period they had joined the institution.
The petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners of the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 15/16thjuly, 1991.
2. Sri Saraswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) is a recognised institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. There was vacancy of 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution. The Committee of Management is alleged to have notified the vacancy to the U. P, Secondary Education Services Commission under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ). The U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) did not recommend the name of any candidate for being appointed as a teacher. The Com mittee of Management of the institution advertised 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the newspaper dainik Jagaran dated 3rd July, 1991. In the advertisement it was indicated that the applications may be sent to the Manager of the institution by 8th July, 1991. The interview shall take place on 10th July, 1991, for the post of lecturer and on 12th July, 1991, for Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade.
3. The petitioners claim that they had applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and sent the applications to the Manager of the institution. The selection took place on the date specified in the advertisement. They were selected and were permitted to join the institu tion on 15/16th July, 1991. The Manager wrote a letter dated 2-11-1991 to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, intimating him that 14 Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade have been appointed on the vacancies which were existing in the institution. He requested that the approval of ad hoc appointment of the teachers may be given till duly selected candidates by the Commission are appointed. On 19-12- 1991, the District Inspector of Schools asked the Manager to reply as to how many posts had been sanctioned and were vacant. It is alleged that the necessary informations were given but he did not pass the order. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking the relief mentioned above. At the time, when the writ petition was taken, the learned standing counsel submitted that the State Government had banned future selection by the Telex dated 29-6-1991 and G. O. dated 17-7-1991. The selection and the appointment of the peti tioners after the said date was illegal. The writ petition was, however, allowed on the ground, firstly that the imposition of ban in making appoint ments in recognised aided
educational institutions by n Telex and G. O. issued by the Government, was invalid and, secondly, the ban was lifted by another G. O. dated 26th September, 1991, and thereafter the petitioners were entitled to function on their posts. The State Government filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench and the judgment was upheld. The State Government filed Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1994 in the Honble Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that there was no power with the State Government to put a blanket ban on the appoint ment of the teachers by the private institutions. The Management could make ad hoe appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships, however, remanded the matter to consider afresh as to whether the detailed procedure as laid down for making the ad hoc appoint ments of teachers by the Management of the institutions, has been followed. The petition has been again placed for consideration of the matter.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and various pleas have been taken challenging the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution.
5. I have heard Shri
