J.A.S. INTER COLLEGE KHURJA, U.P. AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-s-1996-3-96-97
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
JULY 8, 1996
B
Se1vice Law :
U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board C Act, 1982/lst Removal of Difficulties Orde1; 1981 :
S. 18/s. 5-Teachers-Ad hoc appointment -Dwing the Pendency of the w1it petition this Court directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers as required by the petitioner Co/legl--{}.P. Secondmy Education Se1vice Com- nzission selected 8 teachers but one did not join-77ze petitioner appointed } 1 D teachen'-ffeld, II teachm· appointed by the College would be ad hoc appointees pending disposal of the w1it petition and tliey would not and should not claim any right or equity whatsoever pursuant to the said appoint- ment-Ad hoc appointees should be replaced by candidates selected by the Con1n1ission and reconunended for a]Jpointn1ent in accordance wilh tJte Act.
E CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3.
Writ Petition No. 928 of 1992.
F (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain for the Petitioner.
R.C. Verma for the Respondent for State.
G T.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma for Commission.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
It was mentioned in the order dated April 8, 1996 that in spite of adjournment of the case repeatedly, counter affidavit has not been filed. H Consequently, this Court directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers 96
... J.A.S. INTER COLLEGE KHUIUA v. STATE
as required by the petitioners within the specified time. It is now the A admitted position that eight teachers selected by the U.P. Secondary 97
Education Service Commission were appointed. One of them had not joined the service. Consequently, seven persons out of 18 have taken charge. Resultantly, 11 candidates were not recommended for appointment . by the Commission. The petitioner-college appears to have appointed 11 B teachers. It would be obvious that these 11 teachers would be ad hoc appointees p~nding disposal of the Writ petition and they would not and should not claim any right or equity whatsoever pursuant to the Said appointment. Under sub- section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act 5 of 1982), appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-sections (1) and (2) C shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates mentioned therein, namely, (a) when the candidates recommended by the Commission or Board, as the case may be, join the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires; or (c) 30th day of June .. following the day oi such ad hoc appointment. In that view, the ad hoc D appointments though not consistent \\ith Section 5 of the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, therefore, not according to rules, would remain operative until either of the events occur. The said arrangements of ad hoc appointment, if the writ petition is disposed of earlier, would be subject to the result in the writ petition. In other words, the ad hoc appointees should be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission E and recommended for appointment in accordance "1th the said Act.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
R.P. Petition disposed of.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0