MOHD. SARTAJ AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 16-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-f 
I 
MOHD. SARTAJ AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 16, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service law-Appointment-Cancellation of-On ground of initial 
disqualification-Appellants appointed as Urdu teachers in the State of U.P. 
lacked training qualification (BTC) prescribed under the Rules at the time of C 
initial appointment-Hence, had no right over the post and no hearing was 
required before cancellation of their appointment-Cancellation order having 
been issued within a very1 short span of appointment, gave no.probability for 
any legitimate expectation to appellants regarding continuation of their 
service-Qualification obtained at a /a/er stage did not meel requirement of 
!he Rules-UP. Basic (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981-Rule 8-Administralive D 
law-Nalural Justice-Opportunity of prior hearing. 
Appellants were appointed as Urdu teachers in the State of U.P. even 
though they lacked the training qualification (BTC) prescribed under the 
U.P. Basic (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 at the time of initial 
appointment. However, within a very short span of time, Respondents- E 
authorities cancelled their appointment on the ground that they did not 
possess the BTC. Appellants filed writ petition before High Court which 
stayed the order of cancellation of appointment. Meanwhile, the Appellants 
I-
acquired BTC qualification. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition holding the appointment of Appellants to be improper and F 
directed the State of U.P. to re-advertise the posts. 
In appeals to this Court it was contended by the Appellants that 
without issuance of any prior notice or giving of opportunity of being 
heard, and in any case, the State of U.P. having given equivalence of the 
degree possessed by the Appellants, i.e. Moallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, G 
Aligarh, to the BTC, their appointments could not have been cancelled. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The appellants were not qualified and they did not 
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) I S.C.R. 
A possess the B.T.C. or Hindustani Teacher's Certificate or Junior Teacher's 
Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or certificate of any other training 
course recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto at the 
time of their initial appointment. In view of the basic lack of qualifications, 
they could not have been appointed nor their appointment could have been 
B continued. Hence the appellants did not hold any right over the post and 
therefore no hearing was required before the cancellation of their services. 
1388-G-H; 389-AI 
1.2. The cancellation order has been issued within a very short span 
of time giving no probability for any legitimate expectation to the 
C appellants regarding continuation of their service. There was no separate 
appointment order issued in favour of the appellants but the memorandum 
wherein the list of selected candidates was published, provided that all the 
selected candidates must join their respective schools/colleges within 15 
days and from this the nature of appointment made cannot be ascertained. 
Moreover, the cancellation order itself gives an opportunity that if they 
D do hold and possess the B.T.C. qualification along with intermediate 
qualification, they may contact and get the same verified by the appointing 
authority and they may bring this to the notice of the concerned 
authorities. The copy of the order of cancellation was also sent to the 
Principal concerned of the institution with the remarks that he should 
E relieve Urdu teacher with immediate effect if he did not possess the 
certificate of passing the examination of intermediate and B.T.C.; and, if 
he possessed these certificates he should submit the same to the office of 
the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar. Therefore, it is 
apparent that any person having the basic qualification for the 
appointment can produce it before the concerned official so that immediate 
F steps can be taken with regard to the order of cancellation of appointment. 
On the above facts, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by not 
serving notice of giving hearing before the order of cancellation was issued. 
1389-A-E) 
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan und Ors., 119801 4 SCC 379; State of M.P. 
G & Ors. v. Shyumu P~rdi & U/'5 .. 119961 7 SCC 118; M.C. Mehta v. UOI, 
119991 6 SCC 237; Aligarh Muslim Universil)' v. Mimsoor Ali Khan, AIR 
(2000) SC 2783; Viveka Nand Sethi v.

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