Back
2004(2) JLJ 177
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.
K.P. Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 241 of 2001; against the order of M.P. State
Administrative Tribunal, passed in O.A. No. 792 of 1993;
Decided on 24.11.2003.
Petitioner was given an ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer in Law by the Principal, Government K.P. College, Dewas vide order dated 27.8.1980. Said ad hoc appointment continued with short intermittent breaks. Vide order dated 28.4.1984, petitioner was once again given ad hoc appointment, on the strength of which petitioner continued in service as ad hoc Lecturer in Law. Petitioner came forward with the case that abruptly, the Principal of the College terminated his service w.e.f. 16.12.1992. Petitioner, therefore, filed the original application for reinstatement in service and for payment of entire arrears of salary. [Para 2
Learned Tribunal dismissed the same. [Para 3
Held: From the material available on the record, it is clear that petitioner did not possess prescribed essential qualification at no point of time, either at the time of initial ad hoc appointment, or when subsequent changes were introduced by way of amendment. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that he was given initial ad hoc appointment by relaxing qualifications, in absence of any cogent material is neither here nor there. To relax the qualification, in the considered opinion of this Court, there has to be an express order. The petitioner has not placed any such order on record. It is now very well settled in law that under recruitment rules, qualifications for a post are prescribed in order to fulfil objects. In absence of essential qualification whole object would be defeated. The qualifications are necessary in the interest of and for the attainment of the object, namely imparting education to students. It is equally also weI1 settled that employer has a right to amend the qualification prescribed for a post. In this view of the matter, the expression "requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment in the existing recruitment rules applicable to the post held by him on ad hoc basis" occurring in rule 5(iii) of 1986 Rules is very clear and in the considered opinion of this Court, relevant date for ascertaining the relevant qualification would be 31.3.1986 and not 27.8.1980 when petitioner was given ad hoc appointment for the first time. Undisputedly petitioner did not possess the qualification, therefore, he exercised the option to obtain the requisite qualification within specified time failing which he had agreed for the termination of ad hoc appointment. AIR 1990 SC 371, AIR 1992 SC 2130, AIR 1992 SC 677, AIR 1994 SC 55, (1991) 3 SLR 712 and AIR 1988 SC 344 distinguished. [Para 11
f‘k{kk&‘kSf{kd lsok ¼egkfo|ky;hu ‘kk[kk½ HkrhZ fu;e] 1967 ¼e-ç-½&vuqlwph 3] ¼2-3-1987 ls çHkkoh ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½&e-ç- rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ksa dk fofu;eu fu;e] 1986&fu- 5¼rhu½ rFkk 13&rnFkZ O;k[;krk lgk;d çk/;kid }kjk opuca/k ds ckotwn visf{kr vgZrk vftZr ugha dh xbZ&fueksa }kjk fofgr vgZrk dkuwuh çÑfr dh&lsok lekfIr mfpr gSA
;kph dks çkpk;Z] ‘kkldh; ds-ih- egkfo|ky;] nsokl }kjk vkns‘k fnukad 27-8-1980 }kjk fof/k ds O;k[;krk ds in ij rnFkZ fu;qfDr dh xbZ FkhA mDr rnFkZ fu;qfDr vYidkfyd vkarjkf;d [kaMksa lfgr fujarj jghA vkns‘k fnukad 28-4-1984 }kjk ;kph ,d ckj iqu% rnFkZ fu;qDr fd;k x;k ftlds cy ij ;kph fof/k ds O;k[;krk dh Hkk¡fr lsok esa fujarj jgkA ;kph bl i{kdFku ds lkFk mifLFkr gqvk gS fd egkfo|ky; ds çkpk;Z us vdLekr~ mldh lsok 16-12-1992 ls çHkkoh lekIr dj nhA blfy,] ;kph us lsok esa iqufuZ;kstu vkSj osru dh laiw.kZ cdk;k ds lank; ds fy, ewy vkosnu Qkby fd;k FkkA ¼iSjk 2½
fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk og [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA ¼iSjk 3½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vfHkys[kxr miyC/k lkexzh ls ;g Li"V gS fd çkjafHkd rnFkZ fu;qfDr ds le; vFkok la‘kks/ku }kjk çfo"V i‘pkr~orhZ la‘kks/kuksa ds le; Hkh] le; ds fdlh Hkh fcanq ij ;kph dks fofgr vfuok;Z vgZrk ugha FkhA ;kph dh vksj ls fo}ku dkmUlsy ds bl ladFku dk fd ;kph dh çkjafHkd fu;qfDr vgZrk f‘kfFky djds dh xbZ Fkh] fdlh fu‘pk;d lkexzh ds vHkko esa] fujFkZd gSA bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; ds vuqlkj] vgZrk f‘kfFky fd, tkus ds fy, dksbZ vfHkO;Dr vkns‘k vko‘;d gSA ;kph }kjk ,slk dksbZ vkns‘k vfHkys[kxr ugha fd;k x;k gSA fof/k esa vc ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd HkrhZ fu;eksa esa fdlh in ds fy, vgZrk mís‘;ksa dh iwfrZ ds fy, fofgr dh tkrh gSA vfuok;Z vgZrk ds vHkko esa] laiw.kZ mís‘; dh foQy gks tk,xkA fo|kfFkZ;ksa dks f‘k{kk nsus ds mís‘; ds fgr esa vkSj mldh çkfIr ds fy, vgZrk vko‘;d gSA ;g Hkh leku :i ls lqLFkkfir gS fu;ksDrk dks fdlh in ds fy, fofgr vgZrk esa la‘kks/ku djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ekeys dh bl n`f"V ls] 1986 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 5¼rhu½ esa fo|eku] vfHkO;fDr ^^orZeku HkrhZ fu;eksa esa fu;fer fu;qfDr ds fy, fofgr visf{kr vgZrk mlds }kjk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij /kkfjr in dks ykxw** vR;ar Li"V gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; dh ;g lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd lqlaxr vgZrk vfHkfuf‘pr fd, tkus ds fy, lqlaxr rkjh[k 31-3-1986 gksxh] 27-8-1980 ugha tc ;kph dh çFker% rnFkZ fu;qfDr dh xbZ FkhA fufoZokn :i ls ;kph ds ikl vgZrk ugha Fkh blfy,] mlus visf{kr vgZrk fofufnZ"V le; ds Hkhrj çkIr djus ds fodYi dk ç;ksx fd;k Fkk ftlesa foQy jgus ij rnFkZ fu;qfDr dh lekfIr ds fy, og lger FkkA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 371] , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 2130] , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 677] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 55] ¼1991½3 ,l ,y vkj 712 rFkk , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 344 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 11½
Seth, J.--1. This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 30.12.2000 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 792 of 1993. The said O.A. was filed by the petitioner to assail the order dated 25.2.1993 Annexure P-2, whereby petitioner's service as Lecturer in Law stood terminated w.e.f. 16.12.1992.
2. Relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner was given an ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer in Law by the Principal, Government K.P. College, Dewas vide order dated 27.8.1980. Said ad hoc appointment continued with short intermittent breaks. Vide order dated 28.4.1984, petitioner was once again given ad hoc appointment, on the strength of which petitioner continued in service as ad hoc Lecturer in Law. Petitioner came forward with the case that abruptly, the Principal of the College terminated his service w.e.f. 16.12.1992. Petitioner, therefore, filed the Original application for reinstatement in service and for payment of entire arrears of salary. After service of notice, respondents filed reply and opposed the original application of the petitioner.
3. Learned Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for applicant and State Government, found no merit and substance in the original application, accordingly dismissed the same. Learned Tribunal found that as the petitioner was not holding a regular appointment on the post of Lecturer in terms of M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to "1967 Rules" for short) but was having only an ad hoc appointment on 31.3.1986, therefore his case was considered under M.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1986, framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Tribunal also found that like many ineligible ad hoc appointees, petitioner also lacked in the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, therefore, State Government offered two options to petitioner, viz. (1) accept .appointment in the School Education Branch and obtain requisite qualification within four years to have review of the case for appointment on the Post of Assistant Professor in the Collegiate Branch or (2) continue to work as Assistant Professor and obtain the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor, Law by 30.10.1992 failing which ad hoc appointment would come to an end automatically w.e.f. 16.11.1992. Since petitioner opted for the second option but failed to acquire the prescribed qualification within four years' period, Tribunal found no illegality in the action taken by the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to work any further. Accordingly, Tribunal dismissed the original application but directed respondents to pay the salary for the period during which petitioner had actually worked beyond 16.11.1992.
4. Shri B.A. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the view taken by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. It was submitted that petitioner was appointed after due selection as petitioner fulfilled and possessed necessary educational qualifications prescribed under 1967 Rules in the year 1980. It was submitted by learned counsel, that the petitioner in the year 1987 could not be asked or forced to obtain a higher qualification introduced in the 1967 Rules w.e.f. 2.3.1987, vide Notification No. F. 21-4-86-A-XXXVIII dated 28th February 1987 published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 2.3.1987. According to him this would amount to retrospective application of subsequent changes in the 1967 Rules after petitioner had entered the service in the year 1980. As regards the undertaking furnished by petitioner, contention was that the same was not furnished voluntarily inasmuch as looking to scarcity of government jobs and large unemployment, petitioner in order to save his job gave the undertaking which, under the facts and in the circumstances o
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
