Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India disposed of an application arising from a writ petition concerning the appointment of teachers in a private aided educational institution in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, J.A.S. Inter College Khurja, sought directions for appointment of 18 teachers. By an earlier order dated April 8, 1996, the Court had directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers within a specified time, noting that counter affidavit had not been filed despite repeated adjournments. Subsequently, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission appointed 8 teachers, of whom one did not join, leaving 7 teachers having taken charge. Consequently, 11 candidates were not recommended by the Commission. The petitioner-college then appointed 11 teachers on an ad hoc basis pending disposal of the writ petition. The Court was called upon to clarify the legal status and rights of these ad hoc appointees, particularly in light of Section 18(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act 5 of 1982) and the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Court held that the ad hoc appointees shall not claim any right or equity whatsoever pursuant to their appointments. It underscored that under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of three dates: when the candidates recommended by the Commission or Board join the post; when the period of one month referred to under sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires; or the 30th day of June following the day of such ad hoc appointment. The Court noted that the ad hoc appointments, though not consistent with Section 5 of the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and therefore not according to rules, would remain operative until either of those events occurred. The arrangement was made subject to the result of the writ petition, and the ad hoc appointees were to be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission and recommended in accordance with the Act. The application was accordingly disposed of with these clarifications.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Appointments - Rights of Ad Hoc Appointees - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Section 18(3) - The Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointees appointed pending recommendation by the Commission shall not claim any right or equity, and their appointments cease from the earliest of the dates specified in Section 18(3), including when Commission-recommended candidates join. The Court noted that the petitioner-college appointed 11 teachers after the Commission recommended only 7 out of the required 18, and clarified that these ad hoc appointments would not and should not claim any right or equity whatsoever. Held that the ad hoc appointments would remain operative only until the events specified in Section 18(3) occur and would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. (Para 1) B) Service Law - Validity of Ad Hoc Appointments - Compliance with Removal of Difficulties Order - 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Section 5 - The Court observed that the ad hoc appointments were not consistent with Section 5 of the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and therefore not according to rules, but allowed them to remain operative until the specified events occur, subject to the result of the writ petition. The Court directed that the ad hoc appointees should be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission and recommended for appointment in accordance with the Act. Held that despite being irregular, the temporary arrangement could continue until replaced by regular candidates. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc teachers appointed by the petitioner-college, after the Commission failed to recommend all 18 teachers, can claim any right or equity and for how long such appointments remain valid under Section 18(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982.
Final Decision
The application was disposed of with the clarification that the 11 ad hoc teachers appointed by the petitioner-college shall not claim any right or equity, and their appointments shall cease from the earliest of the events specified in Section 18(3) of the Act, including when Commission-selected candidates join; the ad hoc arrangements would remain operative until then, subject to the result of the writ petition.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointments made pending selection by Commission do not confer any right or equity
- Section 18(3) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act
- 1982 provides that ad hoc appointments cease on earliest of specified events
- appointments not in accordance with Removal of Difficulties Order remain operative until replaced by Commission-recommended candidates
