DR. (MRS.) MEERA MASSEY DR. ABHA MALHOTRA DR. S.C. BHADWAL AND ORS. versus DR. S.R. MEHROTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 03-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DR. (MRS.) MEERA MASSEY 
DR. ABHA MALHOTRA 
DR. S.C. BHADWAL AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. S.R. MEHROTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Research Associates or Evaluators-Working since long period-
C Regularisation of services-Adoption of special stipulations conditions-
Contrary to statutory provisions-Validity of-Held, appointments on the 
principle of equity, justice and fair play by adhering to special stipulations 
conditions deprecated-Posts to be filled up in accordance with law strictly 
on merit~However, since the appointments had been approved by Executive 
D Council long back and appellants being fully qualified, their appointmc.'1ts 
are left undisturbed with the observation that the same should not be treated 
as precedent-First Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1973: 
Ordinances 35.8, 35.11 and 35.53-Himachal Pradesh University Statutes~ 
Statute 11. 
E 
Ad hoc appointments-Propriety of-Adhocism in all classes of service 
F 
especially in case of appointment of teachers, Readers and Professors 
deprecated. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 32-PIL-Maintainability 
of 
Appellants were working as Research Associates or Evaluators. The 
Executive Council by its resolution declared the said cadres to be wasting/ 
vanishing cadres. Since the appellants were working for a long time on the 
said post, the Executive Council decided to regularise their services as 
Lecturers after they underwent the selection by Statutory Selection 
G Committee. Appellants appeared before the Selection Committee and on its 
recominendations were appointed to the post of Lecturers. Respondent No.I, 
a Professor challenged their appointments on the ground that it was contrary 
to the Resolution of the Executive Council and also against the First Ordinance 
of Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1973. The University filed a counter 
H affidavit stating that since the appellants were working as Research 
470 
I· 
\ 
DR. MEERA, ABHA S.C. BHADW AL v. DR. S.R. MEHROTRA 
471 
Associates or Evaluators for a long time, on the principle of equity, justice A 
~ 
and fair play, the Executive Council took the decision to regularise their 
appointments as Lecturers on special stipulations conditions. High Court 
quashed the appointment of appellants holding that it was in violation of 
ordinance 35.11. The review petition filed by the University and the appellants 
were dismissed. Hence, the present appeals. 
B 
~ 
The contention of the appellants was that the respondent has no locus 
standi to file the said writ petition. It was also contended that since they 
possessed the requisite qualifications under Ordinance for such appointments 
and the appointments by way of promotion the same was within the powers 
of Executive Council. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The action of the University in appointing the appellants 
on the posts of Lecturers on the principle of equity, justice and fair play by 
adhering to special stipulations conditions is deprecated. [486-G] 
D 
.. 
1' 
1.2. There is no resolution of Executive Council which specifically 
spells out appellants' promotion. The University felt that since these appellants 
continued to teach as Research Associates/ Evaluators for a long time, hence 
on the principle of equity, justice and fair play, their real status of teachers 
be recognised. Hence the Executive Council took the decision to regularise E 
their appointments as teacher. The stand of the University is that they have 
appoin.ted these teachers on special stipulations conditions which is a part 
from the normal mode of appointment. This is how the University has tried 
to justify these appointments, i.e. on special circumstances and on the principle 
of equity, justice and fair play, not under any specific provision of Statute, 
F 
Ordinance etc. If this be so how could these be appointments by way of 
1~ 
promotion. If University resolved to promote, there was no difficulty to say 
"" 
so instead to take shelter of equity, justice and fair play and justify it under 
special stipulation condition. There is no reason why the special stipulation 
was resorted to by the University when they could have filled up the posts 
of Lecturers on a regular basis in accordance with the existing ordinance. G 
It is not pleasant to think that as high an institution as University has to 
..,,. 
regularise something under cover of its own fault. [486-F-H; 487-E] 
1.3. Ordinance 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.