KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAP LECTURERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 29-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

__ ,_-.( 
KARNATAKA STATE PRIVAT~ COLLEGE STOP-GAP 
A 
LECTURERS ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAK)\ AND ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 1992 
[S.R. PANDIAN, KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Service Law-Private Degree Aided Colleges-Teachers--Karnataka 
Government's order dated 3rd October, 1982-Provisionfor ad-hoc ap-
pointments and reappointments with one day's break in service-Provision 
B 
for payment affixed salary being ten rnpees less than the minimum paid to 
C 
regular teachers-Validity qf-Provision for one day's break in service 
held ultra vires-:c-Payment of fixed salary to tempoiwy teachers held 
arbitrary-Directions for. continuing services of temporary teachers, their 
regularisation and payment of salary on par with regular teachers is-
sued- Practice of ad-hoc appointments deprecated. 
· The'Educatio11 .and Youth Services Department of the State of 
Karnataka issued an order dated 3rd October 1981 which provided 
two different methods of selection of teachers in private aided de-
gree col'Ieges--one by Selection Committee and another by Manage-
ment. Under the order appointments for more than three months 
could be made by a selection committee whereas temporary ap-
pointments for less than 3 months could be made by the Manage-
ment and such temporary appointments could be continued for a 
further period of not more than 3 months, with one day's break in 
service. The Government order also provided that such temporary 
teachers shall be paid fixed salary being ten rupees less than the 
minimum payable to regular teachers. The teachers temporarily 
appointed under the said order accordingly continued in service for 
a long period but with a break of a day or two every three months 
in their service. 
Subsequently, they filed a writ petition in this 
Court seeking regularisation of their services by invoking the prin-
ciple of equitable estoppel arising from implied assurance due to 
their long continuance. It was contended on behalf of the petition-
ers that; (i) since the State has regularised the services of ·contract 
teachers and local teachers appointed in Government or. vocational 
colleges they should also be extended similar treatment; and (ii) 
payment of fixed salary instead of regular emoluments for eight 
months in a year was discriminatory and arhitrary. 
397 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Provision of ·one day's break in service in the Gov-
ernment order is deprecated and is struck down as ultra vires. If 
the intention ivas to differentiate between appointments for more 
than three months and others it was a futile exercise. That was 
B 
already achieved by providing two different methods of selection 
one by Selection Committee and other by Management. Distinction 
between appointment against temporary and permanent vacancies 
arc well known in service law. It was unnecessary to make ir ap-
pear crude. If the purpose was to avoid any possible claim fol' regu-
larisation by the temporary teachers then it was acting more like a 
C 
private business house of narrow outlook than government of a wel-
fare State. Such provisions cannot withstand the test of arbitrari-
ness. (403 G; 402 A-Bl 
D 
E 
F 
B.R. Parineeth & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., CMW 
6232of1990 decided on 3.7.1990, referred to. 
2. Order for payment of fixed salary to temporary teachers is 
declared invalid. An appointment may be temporary or permanent 
but the nature of work heillg same and the temporary appointment 
may be due to exigency of service, non-availability of permanent 
vacancy or as stop-gap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, 
yet there can be no justification for paying a teacher, so appointed, 
a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment than a 
regular teacher. Fixation of such emoluments is arbitrary and violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution. (403 G; 402 F-G] 
2.1 Payment of nearly eight months' salary by resorting to 
government order and, that too fixed amount, for the same job 
which is performed by regular teachers is unfair and unjust. Such 
injustice is abhorring to the constitutional scheme. (403 A-B;] 
3. The practice of management of not making regular selection 
utmost lvithin six n1onths of occurrence of vacancy is condemned. 
The helplessness expressed by the State that the managements went 
G 
on continuing such teachers without holding regular selections de-. 
spite orders of educ

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