1993 Supreme(All) 104

High Court Of Allahabad
S.C. Mathur, S.P. Srivastava, JJ.
Prem Balika Rai
Vs.
Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools
Special Appeal No. 2 of 1993 Connected with Special Appeal No..... of 1993
Decided on: 8th February, 1993

The court clarified the legal framework for determining the interse seniority of ad-hoc appointees in the absence of specific statutory rules or executive orders, emphasizing the importance of continuous service and the eligibility criteria for promotion.

Headnote:

UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION AND SELECTION BOARD ACT, 1982 - SECTION 18 - AD-HOC APPOINTMENTS - INTERSE SENIORITY - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE - ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON SENIORITY DETERMINATION.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over interse seniority among ad-hoc appointees to the post of Lecturers in a school led to special appeals challenging a Single Judge's decision that favored one of the appointees, Smt. Asha Rai, over the appellants, Smt. Prem Balika Rai and Smt. Malti Singh.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Smt. Asha Rai's appointment as a Lecturer with effect from 29-3-1984 was continuous and could not be deemed to have ceased on the basis of subsequent letters issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools or Smt. Asha Rai's own letter indicating a break in service. The court also held that Smt. Prem Balika Rai's promotion to the post of Lecturer on 9-7-1984 was irregular as she did not have the requisite five years of continuous service in the lower grade as required under the relevant regulations and rules.

Issues: 1. Whether the period of service of Smt. Asha Rai prior to 8-7-1984 was liable to be ignored while determining the interse seniority. 2. Whether any period of service rendered by Smt Prem Balika Rat as a promotee lecturer was liable to be ignored in this connection.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the Regulations framed thereunder, the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, and the Rules framed thereunder to determine the basis for determining the interse seniority of ad-hoc appointments. 2. The court held that in the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service. 3. The court further held that the provisions of Section 18(3)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, which provided for the automatic cessation of ad-hoc appointments on 30th June following the date of appointment, had lost its efficacy and that the management must be deemed to have renewed the ad-hoc appointment of the teacher on the expiry of the 30th June following the date of such ad-hoc appointment where the services of the teacher initially appointed under Section 18 have not been terminated in accordance with the law or the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher. 4. The court also held that the requirement of having a minimum five years continuous substantive service as envisaged under Regulations 6(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or the requirement of five years continuous service as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 could not be deemed to be applicable to the ad-hoc appointments granted in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 5. The court interpreted the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, and held that the legislative intent behind the provision contained in paragraph 6(c) of the Order was to exclude from the zone of consideration for promotion, the ad-hoc appointees, appointees on stop gap arrangement or on temporary basis, and not to dispense with the requirement of having to the credit of a candidate for promotion, the minimum five years continuous service in the lower grade.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the special appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the decision of the Single Judge and confirming Smt. Asha Rai's seniority over the appellants.