Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India was dealing with an application arising out of a writ petition concerning appointments of teachers in an aided educational institution, J.A.S. Inter College. The background involved a dispute over non-appointment of teachers as directed earlier. In an earlier order dated April 8, 1996, noting repeated adjournments and failure to file counter affidavit, the Court directed the State respondents to appoint 18 teachers as required by the petitioner college within a specified time. Thereafter, eight teachers selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission were appointed, but one did not join, leaving seven who took charge. Consequently, 11 candidates were not recommended by the Commission for appointment. The petitioner college appointed 11 teachers ad hoc to fill these vacancies. The matter came before the Court on the status of these ad hoc appointments pending disposal of the writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the ad hoc appointees acquired any right or equity from their appointments and the duration for which such appointments could continue in light of Section 18(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. Although the order did not record separate arguments of the parties, the admitted position was that the Commission had not recommended candidates for 11 posts and the college had appointed ad hoc teachers to fill the gap. The Court held that the 11 teachers appointed by the college were ad hoc appointees pending disposal of the writ petition and could not claim any right or equity. It referred to Section 18(3) of the Act, which provides that an ad hoc appointment under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of three dates: when Commission-recommended candidates join; when the one-month period referred to in Section 11(4) expires; or the 30th day of June following the ad hoc appointment. The Court further noted that though the ad hoc appointments were inconsistent with Section 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and therefore not according to rules, they would remain operative until one of those events occurred. The arrangement was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition, and the ad hoc appointees were to be replaced by candidates selected and recommended by the Commission. The application was disposed of accordingly. The Court directed that the ad hoc appointments would not confer any rights and that the appointees must yield to regular Commission-selected candidates.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Appointments - No Right or Equity - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Section 18(3) - The petitioner college appointed 11 teachers ad hoc after only 7 Commission-selected teachers joined; the Court held that these ad hoc appointees would not and should not claim any right or equity, and their appointments were subject to the result of the writ petition. Held that ad hoc appointees must be replaced by Commission-recommended candidates (Para 1). B) Service Law - Cessation of Ad Hoc Appointments - Statutory Duration - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Section 18(3) and Section 11(4); Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Section 5 - The Court noted three alternative events upon which ad hoc appointments cease: recommended candidates joining, expiry of one-month period under Section 11(4), or 30th June following ad hoc appointment. Held that although the ad hoc appointments were not consistent with Section 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and not according to rules, they remained operative until the earliest of those events, and were interim only (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc appointments made by the petitioner college pending disposal of the writ petition conferred any right or equity on the appointees; and the manner and duration of cessation of such ad hoc appointments under Section 18(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, read with Section 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.
Final Decision
The application was disposed of. The 11 ad hoc teachers appointed by the petitioner college were held to have no right or equity, and their appointments were to remain operative only until the earliest of the events specified in Section 18(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, subject to the result of the writ petition. They were to be replaced by candidates selected and recommended by the Commission in accordance with the Act.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointments made pending disposal of writ petition do not confer any right or equity
- Section 18(3) U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act 1982 prescribes cessation of ad hoc appointments on earliest of joining of Commission-recommended candidates
- expiry of one-month period under Section 11(4)
- or 30th June following ad hoc appointment
- Ad hoc appointments inconsistent with Section 5 Ist Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 remain operative until statutory events occur
- Ad hoc appointees must be replaced by Commission-recommended candidates
- Interim arrangement subject to result of writ petition
