Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the right to continue as Principal of Brijendra Mani Inter College, Kohandaur, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, between two lecturers, Munishwar Dutt Pandey (appellant, original writ petitioner) and Ramjeet Tiwari (respondent no.1, contesting respondent). Both were lecturers, the appellant in Sanskrit and the respondent in Geography. The previous Principal retired on 30 June 1988. Before retirement, the outgoing Principal wrote to the management identifying the appellant as the senior-most lecturer. The President of the Managing Committee accepted the recommendation, and a letter of appointment effective 1 July 1988 was issued appointing the appellant as ad hoc Principal. The letter stated the appointment would last until approval by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board or any other decision. The Managing Committee later passed a resolution accepting the ad hoc appointment. The District Inspector of Schools approved payment of salary under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, noting that the appointment was temporary under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. In July 1988, the management sent a requisition to the Board for selection of a regular Principal. The Board interviewed candidates and on 3 May 1991 notified selection of respondent no.1 at serial no.1 and another person at serial no.2; the appellant was not selected. The management appointed respondent no.1 on 13 May 1991, and he took charge on 14 May 1991. Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 amended Section 33-A of the 1982 Act by inserting sub-sections (1-A), (1-B), and (1-C), with Section 2 deemed effective from 6 April 1991. The appellant filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, contending that his ad hoc promotion stood statutorily regularised under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) and that the selection of respondent no.1 was invalid. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking to continue as selected Principal. Three writ petitions were heard together. The Single Judge allowed the appellant's writ petition, quashed the selection notification dated 3 May 1991, and issued mandamus to allow the appellant to continue as Principal; the respondent's writ petition was dismissed. The respondent filed Special Appeal No.300 of 1992. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge, holding that the appellant was not entitled to regularisation and that neither Section 33-A(1)(1-A) nor Section 33-A(1)(1-C) applied; it held that the selected respondent was entitled to continue as Principal. It clarified that if the appellant had been paid salary as Principal, he would not be compelled to refund it; if not paid, he would not be entitled to it. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Issues included whether the appellant or respondent no.1 was entitled to continue as Principal; whether the appellant's ad hoc promotion was regularised under the amended Section 33-A(1)(1-A); whether the promotion was valid under Section 18 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981; and the validity of the Board's selection. The appellant argued that his promotion from 1 July 1988 was ratified and stood regularised by deeming fiction with effect from 6 April 1991, making the subsequent selection infructuous. The management and respondent argued that the promotion did not satisfy conditions of Section 18 and the post was not actually vacant, so the selected respondent should continue. The extracted text does not include the final Supreme Court decision; the matter was under consideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Promotion - Section 33-A(1)(1-A) U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - The appellant contended that his ad hoc promotion as Principal effective from 1 July 1988 stood statutorily regularised by the deeming fiction under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) as inserted by the 1991 Amendment Act, effective 6 April 1991 - The Division Bench held that the provision did not apply because the appointment was not made in accordance with Section 18 and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 - The Supreme Court examined whether the amended provision regularised the appellant's promotion and thereby made the subsequent selection infructuous - Held that the conditions of Section 18 must be satisfied for regularisation (Paras 1-24). B) Service Law - Appointment by Promotion - Section 18 U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Paragraph 2, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 - The core issue was whether the appellant's ad hoc promotion was valid without fulfillment of two conditions: notification of vacancy to the Commission and lapse of prescribed period or actual vacancy - The Division Bench held that the promotion was not valid because the post had not remained actually vacant when the resolution was passed; the appellant argued paragraph 4 was complementary to paragraph 2 and should be read conjointly - Held that the conditions of Section 18 must be satisfied for regularisation under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) (Paras 1-24). C) Selection by Board - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 Section 18 - The Board selected the contesting respondent on 3 May 1991 and the management appointed him on 13 May 1991 - The appellant challenged the selection as infructuous because the post was no longer vacant after the deeming regularisation from 6 April 1991 - The Division Bench held that since no regularisation occurred, the selected respondent was entitled to continue as Principal - The Supreme Court examined the validity of the selection notification and appointment (Paras 1-24). D) Writ Remedies - Certiorari and Mandamus - Constitution of India Article 226 - The Single Judge had quashed the selection notification and issued mandamus to continue the appellant; the Division Bench reversed - The Supreme Court considered whether writ relief was properly granted; clarified that salary already paid to the appellant as Principal shall not be refunded, if not paid not entitled - Held that the writ petitions were disposed of with directions accordingly (Paras 1-24). E) Statutory Interpretation - Amendment and Retrospective Effect - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 Section 2 and Section 33-A(1)(1-A), (1-C) - Section 2 of the Amending Act deemed to have come into force from 6 April 1991 - The court considered whether the amendment applied to pending ad hoc appointments before that date - The appellant argued that the deeming fiction regularised the appointment with effect from 6 April 1991, making subsequent selection futile; the Division Bench held otherwise - The Supreme Court examined legislative intent and scheme (Paras 1-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appellant Munishwar Dutt Pandey or respondent no.1 Ramjeet Tiwari is entitled to continue as Principal of Brijendra Mani Inter College, Pratapgarh; whether the appellant's ad hoc promotion as Principal stood regularised under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991; whether the appointment by promotion was validly made under Section 18 of the Act and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981; and the validity of the selection and appointment of the contesting respondent by the Board.
Law Points
- Regularisation of ad hoc promotion under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act
- 1982
- conditions for valid ad hoc appointment by promotion under Section 18
- applicability of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order
- 1981
- retrospective effect of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act
- 1991
- conflict between selected candidate and regularised ad hoc appointee
- writ jurisdiction for quashing selection notification
