COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ARYA NAGAR INTER COLLEGE, ARYA NAGAR, KANPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGER AND ANR. versus SREE KUMAR TIWARY AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 31-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
COMMIITEE OF MANAGEMENT, ARYA NAGAR INTER 
A 
COLLEGE, ARYA NAGAR, KANPUR THROUGH ITS 
MANAGER AND ANR. 
v. 
SREE KUMAR TIWARY AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
U.P. Secondmy Education Se1vices Commission Act, 1982 : Sections 
B 
33-B (l)(a)(i) and 33-B(i)(c). 
C 
U.P. Secondmy Education Se1vices Commission (Removal of Difficul-
ties (Seco11d) Orde1; 1981 : Para 2. 
Se/Vice Law-Adhoc appoi11tme11t-Regularisation-Respondent ap-
poi11ted as ad/we teacher agai11st a slzo1t tenn vacancy-Tenni11ation of D 
appointment-Wiit challe11ging tenninatio11-Responde11t conti11uing on the 
basis of interim stay issued by High Court-Dwing pendency of appeal 
Diviszo11 Be11ch held that subject to an order being passed by competent 
autho1ity the respondent would continue as a regulmised candidat~Appeal 
before Supreme Cowt-Held Division Bench was not right in giving direction E 
that his regulmisation will be subject to the fwther orders since the regularisa-
tion order itself means that it was subject to the result of the writ petition. 
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 153 of 1996. 
Narcsh K. Sharma and S.K. MiRra for the Appellants. 
Vijay Hansaria and S.K. Jain for the Respondents: 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave Granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division H 
467 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997)3S.C.R. 
A Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on August 14, 1996 in SA 
No. 153/96. 
B 
The first respondent came to be appointed as an ad hoc teacher on 
July l, 1986 against a short term vacancy caused by promotion of the 
incumbent on an hoc basis to the next higher post. His appointment came 
to be terminated on May 30, 1988 w.e.f. June 30, 1988. The respondent 
challenged the order of termination in a writ petition. Pending writ petition, 
an interim order of stay though vacated by the learned single Judge, the 
same was granted by the Division Bench. 
C 
The learned Single Judge on merits dismissed the writ petition. On 
appeal, the .Division Bench in the impugned order has held that since, 
pending writ petition, the services of the first respondent came to be 
regularised, he would be entitled to continue in service. However, on 
consideration of the entire matter, we make it clear that the impugned 
D judgment/order of the learned Single Judge will not stand on the continua-
tion in service of the appellant (respondent herein) in pursuance of the 
order dated 27.10.1995 of the District Inspector of Schools regularising his 
services, till an order to the contrary is passed by the competent authority 
in accordance with law. The said order is now the subject matter of the 
appeal. 
E 
Shri N .K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contends that the first respondent came to be appointed on ad hoc basis; 
he continued in service on ad hoc basic till June 30, 1986. The U.P. 
Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) 
F 
Order, 1981, as amended by Third Order, introducing Section 33-B of the 
Act has no application for two reasons, namely that the temporary service 
of the ad hoc employee should continue in a vacancy in accordance with 
Section 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal 
of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981; and he has been continuously serving 
the institution from the date of such appointment upto the date of com-
G mencement of the Third Removal of Difficulties Order. In view of the fact 
that he was continuing only on the basis of the interim stay granted by the 
High Court, it cannot be treated that he has continuously been serving the 
institution entitling lion to avail of the benefit of the Third Removal of 
Difficulties Order. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir K. Gupta, learned 
H counsel for the respondent, contended that pursuant to the recommenda-
COMMfITEEOFMANAGEMENTARYANGR.JNTERCOLLEGE v. S.K TIWARY 469 
tion made by the Committee for regularising the services, matter was A 
placed before a Committee constituted for regularisation and his name 
came to be regularised. The High Court, therefore, was right in stating that 
subject to an order being passed by the competent authority in that behalf, 
the respondent would continue as a regularised candidates. This aspect of 
the matter h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.