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

1991 Supreme(All) 173

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.L. BHAT, J.
Niranjan Rai - Appellant
Versus
District Inspector Of School Ghazipur - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13721 of 1990
Decided on : Feb 13, 1991

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
S.N. Srivastava

An ad-hoc appointee has a right to continue till the commission makes a regular appointment, but a substantive vacancy is to be filled up by promotion from the senior most eligible candidate from the institution.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT - AD-HOC - TERMINATION - SUBSTANTIVE VACANCY - PROMOTION - SENIORITY - REFUND OF SALARY - [1] An ad-hoc appointee has a right to continue till the commission makes a regular appointment. [2] A substantive vacancy is to be filled up by promotion from the senior most eligible candidate from the institution. [3] Refund of salary drawn by an ad-hoc appointee during continuance after the expiry of fixed term is not permissible.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on an ad-hoc basis against a leave vacancy. The person in whose vacancy the petitioner was appointed resigned, creating a substantive vacancy. The college management appointed another person to the post by promotion, considering the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment to have ceased. The petitioner challenged this, claiming entitlement to continue in the post till a regular selection was made.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment ceased to be effective upon the expiry of the fixed term and that the substantive vacancy was to be filled by promotion from amongst the senior most teachers of the college. The court also held that the petitioner could not claim continuance on the post and that the college had the right to make an appointment against the substantive post from amongst its senior most teachers.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment continued beyond the expiry of the fixed term. 2. Whether the substantive vacancy was to be filled by promotion or direct recruitment. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of salary drawn during continuance after the expiry of the fixed term.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An ad-hoc appointment is for a fixed term and ceases to be effective upon the expiry of that term. 2. A substantive vacancy is to be filled by promotion from amongst the senior most teachers of the college who are qualified to hold the post. Direct recruitment on an ad-hoc basis can only be made if a person from the institution is not available. 3. Refund of salary drawn by an ad-hoc appointee during continuance after the expiry of the fixed term is not permissible.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's claim to the post but directed that no recovery be made from him for any amount drawn as salary for the period beyond the fixed term for which he rendered work.

JUDGMENT

M.L. Bhat

1. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as lecturer in Hindi in leave vacancy on 30-1-87 which is evident by Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Financial concurrence was given to the appointment on 2-2-87. That the person in whose leave vacancy the petitioner was appointed is said to have resigned his post with effect from 18-8-89. He was a confirmed lecturer.

2. On 14-5-90, it is stated that the Manager of the institution informed the Principal of the College that a substantive vacancy had arisen due to the acceptance of resignation of Sri Barmeshwar Nath Rai with effect from 15-1-90, Regularisation order of the petitioner had not been received, therefore, his salary shall not be paid. ON the letter of the Manager the Principal is said to have directed the College authority not to prepare the salary bill of the petitioner of May, 1990. The petitioner was informed that short term vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy so he will be treated to be not in service and his services would be deemed to have been terminated. The petitioner's case is that till the vacancy is filled up by the Commission he is entitled to hold the post and his services cannot be dispensed with. ON the basis of these facts he claims the salary of the post and prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to treat the petitioner's services as dispensed with.

In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term on ad hoc basis against a leave vacancy. The petitioner's short term ad hoc appointment was approved on the condition that he had to work for a fixed term and on the expiry of the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools he will cease to hold the post. No further extension was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted salary thereafter, to which objection was raised by the District Inspector of Schools. Since the petitioner's fixed term appointment on ad hoc basis had ceased, therefore, there was direction by respondent No. 1 to realise the salary which was paid to the petitioner after the post became subsequently vacant and after his appointment came to an end. The Committee of Management is said to have notified the vacancy of the petitioner to the Commission. The vacancy which was caused by the resignation of a Hindi lecturer is to be filled up by promotion first from the candidates available in the institution on ad hoc basis. The vacancy became available on 15-1-90 when the resignation of a lecturer holding the post on substantive basis was accepted. As such the post had to be filled up by promotion from the teachers available in the Institution. The petitioner, therefore, cannot hold the post. It is stated that there are senior teachers available in the College and they are eligible for being promoted against the vacancy as lecturer. The petitioner cannot be, therefore, paid salary because he has no right to continue on the post. The committee of management is said to have passed a resolution appointing Sri Dinesh Rai on the post of lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis in accordance with Removal of Difficulties Orders. This appointment order is marked as Annexure-C.A.-7 to the counter affidavit.

3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit also. It is stated that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, whereby he had asked the Management to realise the salary paid to the petitioner is violative of the Court's order. No such order can be passed because the petitioner has discharged his duties. It is stated that the petitioner has been working on ad hoc basis and the vacancy has not been filled by the Commission, therefore, he is entitled to hold the post till the vacancy is filled up under the Commission Act. The eligibility of the person in whose favour resolution of appointment was made is also challenged. It is stated that there is no person eligible in the Institution who can hold the post and the eligibility is to b










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 Back to top