MUNISHWAR DUTT PANDEY versus RAMJEET TIWARI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 03-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNISHWAR DUTT PANDEY 
v. 
RAMJEET TIWARI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
U.P. Secondary Education Se1vices Selection Boards Act, 1982/U.P. 
Secondmy Education Services Commission Rules 1983/U.P. Secondmy 
Education Se1vices Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981: 
Ss. 2(k), 16, 18, 33, 33-A(l)(l-A)!Rule 4/Paragraph 2 as substinued by 
U.P. Seconda1y Education Se1vices Commission (Removal of Difficulties) 
(Second) Order, 1981 and Paragraph 4-P1incipal-Ad hoc appoint-
ment-Regulmisation of-Existing Principal retired on 30.6.1988--Cliainnan 
A 
B 
c 
of Managing Committee appointed appellant as P1incipal w.e.f 1.7.1988 D 
subject to decision of Managing Committee-Managing Committee accepted 
appointment on 29.10.1988--Board conducted inteiviews on 15.4.1991 and 
selected respondent as Piincipal-Consequently respondmt was appointed as 
Piincipal-Wiit petition of appellant allowed by Single Judge of High Cowt 
but dismissed by its Division Bench-Held appellant was regularised by 
deeming provision of s.33-A(l)( 1-A) as P1incipal w.e.f 8.4.1991 and respon-
E 
dent could not be appointed to the post subsequently-Substimted paragraph 
2 of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order has no nexus to existing vacan-
cies on date of its con1niencenlent; it applies to substantive vacancies caused 
in future which could be filled by Management by promotion on purely ad 
hoc basis-By resolution dated 29.10.1988 the Managing Committee accepted 
and ratified the ad hoc appointment of appellant as Principal w.e.f 
1. 7.198fr-Intennediate Education Act, 1921. 
Inteipretation of Statutes. 
F 
Preamble-Held cannot control the CJ.press clear language and sweep G 
of operating provisions of an instnunent. 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression 'Teacher' occuning in s.2(k) of U.P. Secondary Education 
Se1vices Selection Boards Act, 1981-Held includes 'P1incipal. 
H 
439 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was the seniormost lecturer and the contesting respon-
dent was the second seniormost lecturer of the respondent-Inter College. 
On the superannuation of the Principal on 30.6.1988, the Secretary of the 
Managing Committee of the College recommended that charge of the post 
of the Principal be given to the appellant. The President/Chairman of the 
Managing Committee accepted the recommendation and issued a letter 
B appointing the appellant as ad hoc Principal of the College w.e.f. 1.7.1988. 
It was mentioned in the letter that the appointment was purely ad hoc and 
would last till a suitable candidate was appointed by the U.P. Secondary 
Education Services Selection Board or till any other decision was taken by 
the Management. The Managing Committee passed a resolution on 
C 29.10.1988 accepting the ad hoc appointment of the appellant. The appoint· 
ment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. In July 1988 the 
Managing Committee of the College forwardeJ the names of the appellant 
and the contesting respondent to the Board for consideration to the post 
of Principal. The Board conducted the interviews on 25.4.1991 and selected 
the respondent as the Principal. Consequently, the Managing Committee 
D appointed the contesting respondent to the post of Principal by resolution 
dated 13.5.1991. 
Meanwhile the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection BQards 
Act, 1982 was amended and by s. 33-A(l)(l·A) thereof, appointments of 
E those teachers who were promoted under paragraph 2 of the Removal of 
Difficulties Order, 1981 were regularised provided they had been con-
tinuously serving from the date of such appointment to the date of amend-
ment, i.e. 6.4.1991. Consequently, the appellant filed a writ petition claiming 
that by virtue of the amended provisions u/s 33-A(l)(l·A), his ad hoc 
appointment as Principal w.e.f. 1.7.1988 stood regularised and he was en-
F titled to continue as the regular Principal of the College. The respondent 
also filed a writ petition contending that he was entitled to continue as a 
regularly selected Principal of the College. The Single Judge of the High 
Court, taking note of s.33-A(l) (l ·A), allowed the claim of the appellant and 
dismissed the writ petition of the respondent. On . appeal, the Division 
G Bench of the High Court rejected the claim of the appellant and set aside 
the judgment of the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present 
appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that eversince his promotion on

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