2021 Supreme(SC) 444

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Neelima Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021 Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18198 OF 2018
Decided On : 17-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is distinction between irregular and illegal appointment.
(2) Mere over-ruling of principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute binding effect of decision on inter-parties.
(3) It is not permissible for parties to re-open concluded judgments of Court as same may not only tantamount to abuse of process of Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on administration of justice.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Educational qualification – Post of Assistant Music Teacher – Appellant was appointed by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, who is prescribed appointing authority under Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 – She was appointed on a sanctioned post and possessed all necessary prescribed qualifications under Service Rules,1983 – Appointment of appellant can only be construed as irregular and not illegal – Finding recorded by Division Bench of High Court in respect of nature of appointment of appellant being illegal is not liable to be sustained – Her rejection of claim for regularization on ground of her appointment being illegal by impugned order is patently erroneous – Other condition of having worked for 10 years or more also stands fully satisfied as appellant at the time of consideration of her regularization had completed almost 23 years of service – Impugned judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court is not liable to be sustained and set aside – Appellant held entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits which may be extended to her within a period of three months from today. [Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983; U.P. Secondary Education Department Regularization of Ad hoc appointments on Post of Trained Graduate Teachers Rules, 2001] (Paras 23, 24 and 39)

(B) Precedent – Binding effect of a decision – Mere over-ruling of principles on which earlier judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment of higher forum will not have effect of uprooting final adjudication between parties and set it at naught – There is distinction between over-ruling a principle and reversal of judgment – Judgment in question itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner known to or recognized by law – Mere over-ruling of principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute binding effect of decision on inter-parties – Letters Patent Appeal which is in continuation of a Writ Petition cannot be filed collaterally to set aside judgment of same High Court rendered in an earlier round of litigation ignoring principles of res-judicata and doctrine of finality – It is not permissible for parties to re-open concluded judgments of Court as same may not only tantamount to abuse of process of Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on administration of justice. (Paras 30, 32 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Appellant is a Post Graduate from Kanpur University and also holds certificate of Sangit Prabhakar and Senior Diploma from the Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad. On 23.07.1984, she was appointed as Assistant Music Teacher in Government Inter College, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur on a leave vacancy as the regular incumbent went on leave without pay. The terms of the appointment order specified that the appointment was temporary and meant to last till the permanent incumbent rejoined the service. The educational qualifications of the appellant satisfied requirements prescribed under the relevant service rules. Vide letter dated 16.05.1986, terms of the appointment order dated 23.07.1984 was modified by providing that the appointment was to last till the regular incumbent joined back or 20.05.1986, whichever was earlier. Aggrieved by the said modification in the terms of appointment, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 3316 (SS) of 1986 before the High Court challenging the modified terms of the appointment. On 19.05.1986, the management of the College issued another order dispensing with the services of the appellant w.e.f. 20.05.1986.

Findings of Court:

In the end, a feeble attempt was made by Counsel for the State-respondent to persuade us not to interfere in the matter on the ground that the services of appellant were terminated vide letter dated 19.05.1986 which was never challenged as such her services stood terminated. We are not ready to accept the proposition canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent at this stage for the simple reason that it was open for the State to have advanced this contention before the learned Single Judge in the two Writ Petitions decided vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2006. Once this argument was never made before Single Judge in proceedings which has attained finality, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise this argument in this appeal.

Result : Appeal allowed.