Supreme Court of India
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ARYA NAGAR INTER COLLEGE, ARYA NAGAR, KANPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGER AND ANR.versusSREE KUMAR TIWARY AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 341
- Decided
- 31 March 1997
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Holding
The respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Section 33‑B(1)(a)(i); the regularisation order is ineffective.
Summary
The Committee of Management of Arya Nagar Inter College appointed Sree Kumar Tiwari as an ad‑hoc teacher on 1 July 1986 for a short‑term vacancy. His services were terminated on 30 May 1988 effective 30 June 1988, after which he challenged the termination by a writ petition. While the petition was pending, a stay was granted, and later a regularisation order dated 27 October 1995 was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The Supreme Court examined whether Tiwari could claim the benefit of Section 33‑B(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 (the Third Removal of Difficulties Order), which applies when an ad‑hoc appointment continues uninterrupted until the vacancy becomes substantive. The Court held that his services had been terminated before the vacancy became substantive and that he was not continuously serving under the required clause, so he was not eligible for the benefit. Consequently, the Division Bench’s direction to continue his regularisation was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition dismissed, and no costs were awarded, with a note that the age bar could be relaxed if further appointment is made.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 33‑B(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 (Third Removal of Difficulties Order).
- Whether the regularisation order dated 27‑Oct‑1995 is valid despite the termination of services and pending writ petition.
Subjects
ad‑hoc appointmentregularisationRemoval of Difficulties OrderSection 33‑Btermination of servicewrit petitionUttar Pradesh education service
Judgment
COMMIITEE OF MANAGEMENT, ARYA NAGAR INTER A
COLLEGE, ARYA NAGAR, KANPUR THROUGH ITS
MANAGER AND ANR.
v.
SREE KUMAR TIWARY AND ANR.
B
MARCH 31, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
U.P. Secondmy Education Se1vices Commission Act, 1982 : Sections
33-B (l)(a)(i) and 33-B(i)(c). C
U.P. Secondmy Education Se1vices Commission (Removal of Difficul-
ties (Seco11d) Orde1; 1981 : Para 2.
Se/Vice Law-Adhoc appoi11tme11t-Regularisation-Respondent ap-
poi11ted as ad/we teacher agai11st a slzo1t tenn vacancy-Tenni11ation of D
appointment-Wiit challe11ging tenninatio11-Responde11t conti11uing on the
basis of interim stay issued by High Court-Dwing pendency of appeal
Diviszo11 Be11ch held that subject to an order being passed by competent
autho1ity the respondent would continue as a regulmised candidat~Appeal
before Supreme Cowt-Held Division Bench was not right in giving direction E
that his regulmisation will be subject to the fwther orders since the regularisa-
tion order itself means that it was subject to the result of the writ petition.
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2729 of
1997.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 153 of 1996.
- Narcsh K. Sharma and S.K. MiRra for the Appellants.
Vijay Hansaria and S.K. Jain for the Respondents: G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave Granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division H
467
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997)3S.C.R.
A Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on August 14, 1996 in SA
No. 153/96.
The first respondent came to be appointed as an ad hoc teacher on
July l, 1986 against a short term vacancy caused by promotion of the
incumbent on an hoc basis to the next higher post. His appointment came
B to be terminated on May 30, 1988 w.e.f. June 30, 1988. The respondent
challenged the order of termination in a writ petition. Pending writ petition,
an interim order of stay though vacated by the learned single Judge, the
same was granted by the Division Bench.
C The learned Single Judge on merits dismissed the writ petition. On
appeal, the .Division Bench in the impugned order has held that since,
pending writ petition, the services of the first respondent came to be
regularised, he would be entitled to continue in service. However, on
consideration of the entire matter, we make it clear that the impugned
D judgment/order of the learned Single Judge will not stand on the continua-
tion in service of the appellant (respondent herein) in pursuance of the
order dated 27.10.1995 of the District Inspector of Schools regularising his
services, till an order to the contrary is passed by the competent authority
in accordance with law. The said order is now the subject matter of the
appeal.
E
Shri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
contends that the first respondent came to be appointed on ad hoc basis;
he continued in service on ad hoc basic till June 30, 1986. The U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)
F Order, 1981, as amended by Third Order, introducing Section 33-B of the
Act has no application for two reasons, namely that the temporary service
of the ad hoc employee should continue in a vacancy in accordance with
Section 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal
of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981; and he has been continuously serving
the institution from the date of such appointment upto the date of com-
G mencement of the Third Removal of Difficulties Order. In view of the fact
that he was continuing only on the basis of the interim stay granted by the
High Court, it cannot be treated that he has continuously been serving the
institution entitling lion to avail of the benefit of the Third Removal of
Difficulties Order. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir K. Gupta, learned
H counsel for the respondent, contended that pursuant to the recommenda-
COMMfITEEOFMANAGEMENTARYANGR.JNTERCOLLEGE v. S.K TIWARY 469
tion made by the Committee for regularising the services, matter was A
placed before a Committee constituted for regularisation and his name
came to be regularised. The High Court, therefore, was right in stating that
subject to an order being passed by the competent authority in that behalf,
the respondent would continue as a regularised candidates. This aspect of
the matter has been dealt with in the rejoinder filed by the appellant stating B
that it is being adjudicated in another pending case; therefore, the appeal
no longer survives.
In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is : whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the
Third removal of Difficulties Order as indicated hereinbefore? Section C
33-B (l)(a)(i) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982
postulates among others, regulation of a candidate who was appointed by
promotion or by direct recruitment in the certificate of teaching grade
before May 13, 1989 against a short terms vacancy in accordance with
paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commis-
sion (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was D
subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy. It is seen that the
regular incumbent retired from service on June 30, 1988. Consequently, the
temporary vacancy was deemed to have been converted into a substantive
vacancy w.e.f. June 30, 1988. But the crucial question is: whether the
respondent was continuously serving the institution under clause ( c) of E
Section 33-B(i)? Admittedly, the service of the respondent came to be
terminated w.e.f. June 30, 1988. Though he had obtained the stay order
and continued to be in service, it was not by virtue of his own right under
an order of appointment, he continued in the office with permission of the
management. In fact, ,in the recommendation niade before the Selection F
Committee, they have stated as under:
"Ad hoc appointment of Shri Sri Kumar Tiwari was made on
1.8.1986 L.T. Grade and vide notice dated 30.5.88 his services were
terminated. On the basis of the above order Shri Sri Kumar Tiwari
obtained stay order No. 13565 dated 29.7.1988 from Hon'ble High G
Court. Therefore, appointment is disputed."
In fact, the regularisation order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools also says that it was subject to the result in the writ petition. The
appeal being the continuation of the writ petition, the question arises : H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.
A whether the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 33-
B(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act,
1982. We have seen that his services came to be terminated on May 30,
1988 and the amendment Act has no application. Hence, the Division
Bench was not right in giving direction that his regularisation will be subject
B to the further order since the regularisation order itself means that it was
subject to the result of the writ petition.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the writ petition stands dismissed,
but in the circumstances, without costs. If there is provision for further
appointment according to rules, the bar of age may be relaxed appropriate-
C ly.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "ad‑hoc appointment"Sign in to search