Case Note & Summary
The case before the Supreme Court arose from a special leave petition against the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.258 of 1996. The dispute concerned the validity of appointments of L.T. Grade teachers in S.S.V. Inter College, Ghaziabad, an aided private educational institution governed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. Sixteen substantive vacancies arose in the college. The management claimed to have notified the vacancies to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad. Before the Commission recommended candidates, the management issued advertisements in two newspapers on June 28 and July 3, 1991, conducted interviews on July 12, 1991, and allowed the petitioners to join as teachers on July 15 and 16, 1991. When papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on November 2, 1991 for financial sanction, the Inspector raised queries regarding vacancies and procedure by proceedings dated December 19, 1991. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.20128 of 1992, which was allowed. Since salaries were not paid, they filed another Writ Petition No.26646 of 1992. An appeal was filed against the order in the first writ petition; the Division Bench dismissed it. In SLP No.12338 of 1994, the Supreme Court on August 8, 1994 set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter to ascertain whether appointments had been made properly and in accordance with law. On remand, the learned single Judge by judgment dated February 27, 1996 held that the management selected and appointed the petitioners without issuing any letters of appointment before expiry of two months as required under Section 18 and not in accordance with Section 18 read with the First 1981 Order. The Division Bench upheld that decision, leading to the present special leave petition. The core legal issues were whether the appointments of the petitioners were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Act read with para 5 of the First 1981 Order; whether the First 1981 Order ceased to be operative after the Commission started functioning from November 1, 1983; and whether the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada correctly interpreted the effect of the First 1981 Order. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contended that prior to the Act, appointments were made by the management under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Commission started functioning only from November 1, 1983, and the First 1981 Order was issued to make ad hoc appointments during the period the Commission was not functional. Once the Commission started functioning, the First 1981 Order outlived its purpose. Section 16 provides for appointment on recommendation of the Commission, and Section 18 provides for ad hoc appointment. He argued that the Full Bench in Radha Raizada had not properly considered the effect of the First 1981 Order and that the High Court and single Judge were wrong in holding the appointments invalid. The Supreme Court examined Sections 16, 18 and 33 of the Act and para 5 of the First 1981 Order. Section 16 mandates that every appointment of a teacher shall be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission, and any appointment in contravention is void. Section 18 empowers the management to appoint ad hoc teachers only when the vacancy has been notified to the Commission and either the Commission has failed to recommend a candidate within one year or the post has actually remained vacant for more than two months. The court noted that the First 1981 Order was issued under Section 33 to remove difficulties and its para 5 prescribes the method for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, including inviting applications through the District Inspector of Schools and public advertisements, and selection based on quality points. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada, which had elaborately considered the legislative history and had held in paragraph 41 that the power to appoint ad hoc teachers under Section 18 and the First 1981 Order is one and the same, and the method and manner in para 5 must be followed. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the First 1981 Order became inoperative after the Commission started functioning, stating that the order regulates the method and manner of ad hoc appointments as part of the scheme under Section 18. The Supreme Court found no force in the petitioner's contention and upheld the High Court's conclusion that the appointments were not made in accordance with law. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Teachers in Aided Private Educational Institutions - Management's Power to Make Ad Hoc Appointments - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Sections 16, 18 - The management of an aided college appointed L.T. Grade teachers without following the mandatory procedure under Section 18 and para 5 of the First 1981 Removal of Difficulties Order; the High Court held the appointments invalid. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention that the appointments were valid, holding that the power to appoint ad hoc teachers is one and the same under Section 18 and the First 1981 Order, and appointments in contravention of Section 16(1) are void (Paras Not mentioned). B) Statutory Interpretation - Removal of Difficulties Orders - Operative Efficacy of First 1981 Order - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, Section 33; First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Para 5 - The petitioner contended that the First 1981 Order outlived its purpose after the Commission started functioning on November 1, 1983. The court rejected this, reasoning that the order was issued under Section 33 to remove difficulties and its para 5 regulates the method and manner of ad hoc appointments as part of the scheme under Section 18; hence the procedure remains applicable (Paras Not mentioned). C) Precedent - Full Bench Decision - Interpretation of Removal of Difficulties Order - Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, (1994) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1551 - The petitioner argued that the Full Bench did not properly consider the effect of the First 1981 Order. The court found no force in this contention, endorsing the Full Bench's elaborate consideration of legislative history and its conclusion that the power to appoint under Section 18 and the First 1981 Order is one and the same, and the method in para 5 must be followed - Held that appointments must be made in accordance with para 5 of the First 1981 Order (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of petitioners were made in accordance with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 read with Para 5 of the First 1981 Removal of Difficulties Order; whether the First 1981 Order ceased to be operative after the Commission started functioning on November 1, 1983
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found no force in the petitioner's contention and upheld the High Court's view that the appointments were not made in accordance with law. The special leave petition was dismissed (implied by the reasoning 'We find no force in the contention').
Law Points
- Appointments of teachers in aided institutions must be made only on recommendation of Commission under Section 16
- ad hoc appointments under Section 18 require notification of vacancy and expiry of prescribed period
- management's direct recruitment without following para 5 of First 1981 Order is invalid
- First 1981 Order remains applicable for method and manner of ad hoc appointments
- appointments in contravention of Section 16(1) are void
- power under Section 18 and First 1981 Order is one and the same
