Holding

The ad‑hoc appointment was valid and the State’s claim that it never existed cannot be accepted; the respondent was eligible for substantive appointment under Section 31‑C as the Gorakhpur University statutes allowed relaxation of qualifications, which was exercised and approved.

Summary

The respondent was appointed as an ad‑hoc lecturer in 1985 at a college affiliated to Purvanchal University (formerly Gorakhpur University) after selection by a committee and approval by the Vice‑Chancellor. The 1991 Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Ordinance introduced Section 31‑C, allowing ad‑hoc teachers who possessed the requisite qualifications to be given substantive appointments; the respondent's case was considered but the selection committee did not recommend him, and his services were terminated on 30‑June‑1992. He challenged the termination. The High Court held that, since the statutes of Gorakhpur University (applicable until Purvanchal University’s first statutes were made) permitted relaxation of qualifications, his ad‑hoc appointment was valid and the termination unlawful. The State appealed, contending that the 1980 Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act barred any ad‑hoc appointment after its commencement. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, observing that the ad‑hoc appointment had been validly made and that the relaxation provision under Gorakhpur University statutes had been exercised and approved by the Vice‑Chancellor, making the respondent eligible for substantive appointment. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the ad‑hoc appointment made before the 1991 ordinance was invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.
Whether the statutes applicable to the college (Gorakhpur University statutes) provided for relaxation of qualifications, thereby qualifying the respondent for substantive appointment under Section 31‑C.
Whether the selection committee could lawfully reject the respondent’s substantive appointment on the ground of lack of qualification relaxation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

ad‑hoc appointmentsubstantive appointmentrelaxation of qualificationsuniversity statutesSection 31-CUttar Pradesh Higher Education Services CommissionState Universities Acttermination of services

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P. AND 10RS.
v.
DEEP NARAIN TRIPATHI AND ORS.

APRIL 8, 1996

B [AM. AHMADI CT, N.P. SINGH AND
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

•
Service Law :

C Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Se1vices Commission (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1991 (later replaced by UP. Act 2 of 1991)-Section 31-C-Sub-
stantive appointment of ad-hoc appointee-Denial of--f'ost of lecturer--Ad-
hoc appointment duly made under relevant statlltes-The appointment stood
valid for 7 yeor:Y--Plea that the appointment did not exist since very inception
as per provisions of UP. Higher Education Services Commission Act,
D 1980-Held, the plea cannot be taken in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

Statute of Gorakhpur University-Statute 11. 13(1)(2)(c).

E State University Act, 1973-Section 50(1-8).

The respondent was selected as an adlhoc lecturer in 1985 in a
College affiliated to Poorvanchal University. The College was earlier af-
filiated to Gorakhpur University. The selection was duly made by Selection
Committee who recommonded his name to the Managing Committee which
F was accepted, and he was appointed. Later in 1986, the appointment was
also approved by the Vice Chancellor.

In 1991, Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission '
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 was promulgated. Section 31-C thereof
G provided that ad-hoc appointment of a teacher between 3.1.84 and 30.6.91,
who on the date of commencement of the ordinance possessed the
qualification required for regular appointment to the post under the
provisions of relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad-hoc appoint-
ment, may be given substantive appointment by the management of the
College. Selection Committee was to consider the case of such ad-hoc
H teachers. The case of the respondent was placed before the Selection
78 f
•

STATE v. D.N. TRIPATill 79

Committee, which did not recommend him for substantive appointment A
and his services were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1992.

.The respondent challenged the termination order in the High Court.
The State contended that initial appointment itself of the respondent was
illegal becanse he did not possess the requisite qualification for being
appointed as lecturer and there was no provision for relaxation of B
qualification under the statutes of Poorvanchal University.

High Court allowed the case of the respondent, holding that as per
Section 50(1-8) of State Universities Act, 1973, until making of First
Statute of Poorvanchal University, the statutes of Gorakhpur University C
were to be applicable. The statutes of Gorakhpur University had provision
for relaxation of any qualification.

The State approached this Court in appeal and contended that the
appointment did not exist since very inception, as U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission having come into force, no ad-hoc appointment could D
have been made.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The stand that ad-hoc appointment could not have been E
made, as the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, had
come into force, cannot be taken on behalf of the appellant State in the
facts and circumstances of the case. It is au admitted position that the
ad-hoc appointment of the respondent had been held to be valid till 1992
and only when the Selection Committee constituted under Section 31-C did
not recommend for substantive appointment of the respondent, the im- F
pugned order was issued on 26.6.1992. In this backgronnd it is not possible
to hold that in the eye of law, the ad-hoc appointment of the respondent
did not exist since very inception. [83-F-H; 84-A]

2. Once it has been found that under the relevant statutes of the
Gorakhpnr University, which were applicable, there was a provision for G
relaxation of any qualification and the power nuder the said provision had
Leen exercised, which was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Univer-
sity. It was no more open to the Selection Committee constituted under
Section 31-C to say that there was no provision for relaxation under the
requisite qualification for being appointed as a lecturer on substantive H
•

80 SUPREME COURT REP or TS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A basis. [84-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6902 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.94 of the Allahabad High
B Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 24381 of 1992.

T.N. Singh for R.B. Misra for the Appellants.

R.K. Jain, Ms. Shashi Kiran for M.M. Kash yap for the Respondents.

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SIGH, J. Leave granted.

The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal for setting aside the
judgment of the High Court holding the appointment of the writ petitioner
D · respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) as a Lecturer in
Sanskrit in Sri Bajrang Maha Vidalaya, Dadar Ashram, Sikandarpur, as
valid.

The institution aforesaid is a duly recognised Dq,>ree College and is
affiliated to Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Earlier it was affiliated to
E Gorakhpur University. Its teachers and employees are being paid salaries
through the State fund. A permanent vacancy arose on the retirement of
Dr. Sudarshan Tripathi. It is said that a requisition was made to the Uttar
Pradesh Higher Education Services commission (hereinafter referred to as
Commission). Since no recommendation was made by the Commission for
F filling up the post, an advertisement was issued by the Management of the
institution on 6.8.1985 for the post of the Lecturer in Sanskrit. Pursuant to
the said advertisement, several persons including the respondent applied
and they appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Com-
mittee found the respondent as the most suitable person and recommended
his name to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee accepted
G the recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued a letter of
appointment to the respondent. The respondent joined the said institution.
The appointment of the respondent was approved by the Vice Chancellor
on 10.4.J 986. There is no dispute that since the date of appointment the
respondent had been working as a Lecturer in the said institution. In the
H year 1991 the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission
STATE v. D.N. TRIPATHI[N.P.SINGH,J.) 81

(Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 (U.P. Ordinance No. 43 of 1991) was A
promulgated which was later replaced by U.P. Act 2of1991. Section 31-C
which was introduced by the Ordinance aforesaid provided that any
teacher other than a Principal who was appointed on ad-hoc basis alter
3.l.19S4 but not later than 30.6.1991 on a post as specified in the said
~. Section which includes a post which has fallen vacant, then if the person
" who had been appointed on ad- hoc basis between the period aforesaid B
an,9 who on the date of such commencement possessed the qualification
r~iredJor regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the
relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad-hoc appointment, may be
given substantive appointment by the management of the College. In the
said Section there is also a provision for a constitution of Selection Com- C
mittec to consider the cases of such ad-hoc teachers. In view of the
provisions aforesaid the case of the respondent was placed before the
Selection Committee, but by an order dated 26.6.1992 issued by the Direc-
tor of Education (Higher Education) respondent was informed that no
substantive appointment was being given to him in terms of Section 31-C D
aforesaid and because of that it shall be deemed that the services of the
respondent had been terminated w.e.f. ·30.6.1992. This communication was
challenged by the respondent before the High Court.

In the counter affidavit which was filed to the writ petition in ques-
tion, a stand was taken on behalf of the respondents of that writ petition E
that the initial appointment of the respondent as an ad-hoc Lecturer in the
College in question itself was illegal because the respondent did not
possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as the Lecturer. In
this connection, reliance was placed on the provisions of the U.P. Higher
Education Services Commission Act 1980 which prescribed the conditions F
for the appointment of a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on recommendation of
the Selection Committee by the management of the College.

The High Court in the impugned order has pointed out that when
the respondent had been appointed on an ad-hoc basis on the recommen- G
dation of the Selection Committee, by the management of the College
which had been approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.1986, there was
no occasion for the respondents to the writ petition, to question the initial
appointment of the petitioner, in the year 1992. The High Court has said
that admittedly the case of respondent along with others was placed before
the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 31-C H
•
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A aforesaid treating the respondent to have been ~ppointed on ad-hoc basis
after 3.1.1984 and before 30.6.1991. According to the High Court, the only
question which had to be examined in the said writ petition was as to
whether the Selection Committee was justified in taking the view that as
the respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications required for
regular appointment to the post in question under the provisions of the
B relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad-hoc appointment, he was
not entitled to be given substantive appointment by the management of the
College. The High Court pointed out that the Selection Committee con-
stituted under Section 31-C aforesaid for regularisation of the Lecturers
who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis between the period mentioned
c aforesaid, was under the impression that there was no provision in the
statute of the Purvanchal University for granting relaxation which impres-
sion according to the High Court was not correct. In that connection it was
said:

"........... the Committee was under impression that there was no
D provision in the Statute of Purvanchal University for granting
relaxation but this is not a correct reading of the requisite
provisions, Section 50(1-8) of the State j.Jnivernities Act, 1973 runs
as follows :

E "(1-8) Until the First Statutes of the Purvanchal University
are made under this section, the statutes of the University of
Gorakhpur, as in force immediately before the establishment
of the said University, shall apply to it subject to such adap·
tation and modifications as the State Government may by
11
notification provides.
F
Admittedly, the first statute of the Pun'anchal University has not
been published so far, therefore, the statute of Gorakhpur Univer-
sity shall apply to the present case. Therefore under the specific
provisions referred to above the statutes of Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur are applicable to the present case."
G
Then reference was made to Statute 11.13(1)(2) of Gorakhpur University
and it was pointed out that there was a provision for relaxation of any of
the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (b)(c) of clause 2 of the relevant
statute in question. As such it could not be said that there was no provision
H for relaxing the qualifications. In this background, according to the H:igh
STATE v. D.N. TRIPATIU [N.P. SINGH,J.] 83

Court the Selection Committee was under mis-apprehension that there was A
no provision for relaxation of the minimum qualifications when the respon-
dent was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter the High Court
observed:

"This Court is not required to go into the question as to whether
the relaxation could be given by the selection committee or not, B
once it is found that there was a provision for granting relaxation
which the Regularisations Committee wrongly thought that there
was no such provisions.

Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that the discre- C
tion has been left to the selection committee to grant relaxation,
if it was of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident
either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high
11
standard.

In other words, the High Court was of the view that there being a. D
provision for relaxation of any qualification under the s(atutes framed by
,, the Gorakhpur University which were in force on the relevant date, as no
statutes had been framed by the Purvanchal University and power of
relaxation having been exercised which had been approved by the Vice
Chancellor of the University, there was no occasion for the Selection
E
Committee under Section 31-C aforesaid to say that in the absence of a
provision of relaxation under the statutes of the Purvanchal University, the
respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications on the date of his
initial appointment on ad-hoc basis.

It was not stated on behalf of the appellant-State that on the date of F
the appointment of the respondent on ad-hoc basis the statutes framed by
the Gorakhpur University were not in force. The primary objection which
• was raised on behalf of the Stale during the hearing of the appeal was that
as the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act 1980 had come
into force no ad-hoc appointments could have been made. In that connec- G
tion, reference was made to different provisions of the aforesaid Act.
According to us, this stand cannot be taken on behalf of the appellant -
State in the facts and the circumstances of the present case. It is an
admitted position that the ad-hoc appointment of the respondent had been
held to be valid till 1992 and only when the Selection Committee con-
stituted under Section 31-C aforesaid did not recommend for substantive H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A appointment of the respondent, the impugnetl order was issued cm
26.6.1992. In this background, it is not possible for this Court to hold that
in the eye of law, the ad-hoc ·appointment of the respondent did not exist
since very inception. The High Court has rightly pointed out that not only
the said appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the Univer-
sity in exercise of his statutory power under the relevant provisions of the
B Act in force, but the case of the respondent was' placed for consideration
as to whether a substantive appointment be given to him under the
provisions of Section 31-C. Once the High Court has found that under the •
relevant statutes of the Gorakhpur University which were applicable, there
was a provision for relaxation of any qualificatioo and the power under the
c said provision had been exercised, which was aplJroved by the Vice Chan-
cellor of the University, it was no more open to the Selection Committee
constituted under Section 31-C to say that as there was no provision for
relaxation under the Purvanchal University, responde_pt did not possess the
requisite qualifications for being appointed as a Lecturer on substantive
D basis.

The appeal accordingly fails and is disfuissed. In the facts and
circumstances ofthe case, there shall to no order as to casts. •
K.T. Appeal dismissed.

•

'