Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raman Singh, was appointed as an ad-hoc Lecturer in English on 11 August 1993 by the Committee of Management of the third respondent school, against a short-term vacancy created by a three-month leave granted to the regular incumbent. On 1 October 1993, the regular lecturer died, and the appellant continued in service. The management sought to absorb him into the substantive vacancy and applied for approval from the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) on 2 July 1994 and 18 March 1996, but no intimation was received. The appellant filed a writ petition in April 1996 seeking a mandamus to treat his ad-hoc appointment as permanent and for salary release. The High Court granted an interim order on 16 April 1996 allowing him to continue with salary until a regularly appointed candidate was available. On 30 June 1997, Nem Singh was appointed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, but he did not join, allegedly due to collusion between the appellant and management. The appellant's salary was stopped. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge on 9 October 2013, and the Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 30 October 2017, which held that the appellant's appointment was in a leave vacancy under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, and without approval, no further direction for continuance or salary was permissible. The Division Bench directed that salary paid till the date of judgment shall not be recovered, but no further emoluments. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was appointed ad-hoc in a leave vacancy, and upon the death of the regular incumbent, the leave vacancy ceased. The substantive vacancy had to be filled in accordance with law, and the appellant had no right to claim conversion to a substantive appointment. The DIOS had rejected the absorption proposal on 14 July 1994 as it violated Section 18 of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Removal of Difficulties Order. The Court held that the High Court's view was correct. However, to avoid dislocation of work, the Court directed that the appellant be allowed to continue purely on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate is selected, and his salary be paid for the period he works until then, under Article 142. The appeal was disposed of with directions to fill the post regularly within four months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad-hoc Appointment - Leave Vacancy - Absorption - An ad-hoc appointment made against a leave vacancy does not entitle the appointee to claim absorption into a substantive vacancy that arises subsequently; the substantive vacancy must be filled in accordance with law. (Paras 14-15) B) Service Law - Approval of Appointment - Requirement - The appointment of the appellant to a substantive post was without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, which was declined as it violated the provisions of Section 18 of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. (Paras 9, 15) C) Service Law - Interim Orders - Effect - Continuance in service by virtue of interim orders does not create any vested right in the appointee; the appellant had no right to claim regular appointment or continuance beyond the interim period. (Paras 14-15) D) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Salary for Work Done - The Supreme Court, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that the appellant be paid salary for the period he works until a regular candidate is appointed, to ensure no dislocation of work in the educational institution. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ad-hoc appointee in a leave vacancy is entitled to be absorbed into a substantive post upon the death of the regular incumbent, and whether the appellant is entitled to continue in service and receive salary.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but directed that the appellant be allowed to continue purely on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate is selected, and his salary be paid for the period he works until then, under Article 142. The post must be filled regularly within four months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ad-hoc appointment in leave vacancy does not confer right to substantive appointment
- Approval of competent authority required for absorption
- Interim relief cannot create vested right
- Article 142 used to direct salary payment for work done
