Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a dispute over the regularization of an ad-hoc Lecturer in Sanskrit in a degree college affiliated to Purvanchal University. The respondent was appointed on an ad-hoc basis in 1985 after a selection process, and his appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.1986. He continued to serve without interruption. In 1991, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, later replaced by U.P. Act 2 of 1991, introduced Section 31-C, which provided for substantive appointment of ad-hoc teachers appointed between 3.1.1984 and 30.6.1991 if they possessed the required qualifications on the date of ad-hoc appointment. The respondent's case was placed before the Selection Committee constituted under Section 31-C, but by order dated 26.6.1992, the Director of Education (Higher Education) informed him that no substantive appointment was being given and his services were deemed terminated with effect from 30.6.1992. The respondent challenged this communication before the High Court. The High Court found in his favour, holding that the initial ad-hoc appointment was valid and that the Selection Committee had erred in assuming there was no provision for relaxation of qualifications under the Purvanchal University statutes. The High Court applied Section 50(1-8) of the State Universities Act, 1973, which provided that until the first statutes of Purvanchal University were made, the statutes of Gorakhpur University would apply. Gorakhpur University Statute 11.13(1)(2) permitted relaxation of qualifications. Since relaxation had been exercised and approved by the Vice Chancellor, the Selection Committee could not refuse substantive appointment on that ground. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, no ad-hoc appointments could have been made after the Act came into force. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the ad-hoc appointment had been accepted and acted upon for years, and the case had been placed before the Selection Committee under Section 31-C, which presupposed the appointment's validity. The Court held that the State could not now challenge the appointment's existence from inception. It affirmed the High Court's finding that the applicable Gorakhpur University statutes provided for relaxation and that such relaxation had been properly exercised and approved. Consequently, the Selection Committee's decision was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad-hoc Appointment Validity - State Cannot Challenge Validity After Acceptance and Approval - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980; Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1991, Section 31-C - The respondent was appointed as ad-hoc Lecturer in 1985, approved by Vice Chancellor in 1986, and his case was considered under Section 31-C for regularization. The Supreme Court held that the State could not later argue that no ad-hoc appointments could have been made after the 1980 Act when it had treated the appointment as valid for years and referred the case to the Selection Committee. Thus, the ad-hoc appointment's existence could not be challenged at this stage. Held that the appointment's validity was accepted. (Paras not mentioned) B) Education Law - Applicability of Gorakhpur University Statutes to Purvanchal University - Section 50(1-8) State Universities Act, 1973 - Until first statutes of Purvanchal University are made, the statutes of Gorakhpur University apply as adapted. The High Court correctly found that the Selection Committee was under a misapprehension that no relaxation provision existed under Purvanchal University, whereas Gorakhpur University Statute 11.13(1)(2) allowed relaxation. (Paras not mentioned) C) Service Law - Regularization under Section 31-C - Power of Selection Committee to Reject on Qualification Ground - U.P. Act 2 of 1991, Section 31-C - The Selection Committee cannot refuse substantive appointment on ground that candidate lacked qualifications if the applicable statutes provide for relaxation and such relaxation was exercised and approved by the Vice Chancellor. The High Court's finding that relaxation was available and utilized was upheld. Held that the Committee's decision was erroneous. (Paras not mentioned) D) Constitutional Law - Estoppel Against State - State Cannot Challenge Long-Accepted Appointment - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 - The Supreme Court held that since the State had accepted the ad-hoc appointment for years, approved by Vice Chancellor, and placed the appointee's case for regularization, it could not later argue that the initial appointment was void ab initio. This is based on principles of fairness and consistency. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding the respondent's ad-hoc appointment valid and directing regularization despite the Selection Committee's refusal based on alleged lack of qualifications and absence of relaxation provision under Purvanchal University; whether Gorakhpur University statutes applied; whether State could challenge initial appointment years later
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision and held that the respondent's ad-hoc appointment was valid and that the Selection Committee under Section 31-C could not refuse substantive appointment because Gorakhpur University statutes providing for relaxation were applicable and had been properly exercised. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Once an ad-hoc appointment is approved by the Vice Chancellor and acted upon
- the State cannot challenge its validity
- The Selection Committee under Section 31-C cannot refuse substantive appointment if applicable university statutes allow relaxation and relaxation was exercised
- Under Section 50(1-8) of State Universities Act
- 1973
- statutes of Gorakhpur University apply to Purvanchal University until first statutes are framed
