LexPRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. JULY 10, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Secondmy Education Services Commission and Selec- tion Board Remov~l of Difficulties Order, 1981 : Para 5. Uttar Pradesh-Government Aided Private Educational Institu- tions-Ad hoc appointment of teachers-Procedure prescribed for in orde1~Nature of Orde,._He/d the Order supplements the power to select and appoint adhoc teachers as per the procedure pre.mibec}-Held the Order was pennanent and not transient-Adhoc appointn1ents should be ntade in ac- D cordance with procedure prescribed in para ~Appointn1ents n1ade in trans- gressin thereof are illegal appointments and confer no right on the appointees. U.P. Secondmy Se1vices Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982: Sections 16, 18 and 33. E Service Law-Govemment Aided Private Educational Institu- tions-Inter-College--Recntitment of L. T. Grade teachers-Intimation Issued to U.P. Secondary Education Services Conunission-In the n1eantin1e petitioners appointed by Col/ege--Adhoc appointments made by College not as per procedure prescribed in para 5 of 1981 orda-Financial sanction for F payment of salaries not accorded by Distlict Inspector of School-W!it:-High Court holding that the selection and appointment of petitioners was not in accordance with law-A]Jpeal-Held 1981 order envisages recruit111ent as per procedure presc1ibed in para 5 thereof-ft is an in-built procedure to avoid 111anipulation and nepotisn1 in selection and appointnzent of the teachers by G the Management to any posts in aided institution-The view taken by High Carat 1vas con·ect. Re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, T71e Ajmer Merwarit (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 and The Pwt C States (Laws) Act, i950, [1951] SCR 747; Mahadeva Upendra Sinai Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR H 640 and Radha Raizada & Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati 424 P.K.SHARMA v. STAIB 425 Darbari Gi11s College & 01:1·., (1994) 3 U.P.LB.E.C. 1551, referred to. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12454 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.96 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 258 of 1996. B P.P. Rao and R.P. Gupta for the Appellants. The following Order of the .Court was delivered : Thi.' special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996 made by Allahabad High Ccurt in Special Appeal No. 258 of 1996. The petitioners came to join as LT. Grade teachers in S.S.V. Inter College, Ghaziabad. It is claimed that 16 substantive vacancies and arisen c in the said college and the intimation thereof was claimed to have been issued to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission at Allahabad D (for short, the ncommission 11). But before recommendatioD came to be made by the Commission for appointment of the teachers, advertisement notifying the said 16 vacancies appears to have been issued in two newspapers on June 28 and July 3;1991 and interviews are claimed to have been conducted by the Management of the said college on July 12, 1991 and the petitioners were allowed, as stated above, to join as teachers on E July 15 and 16, 1991. When papers were sent on November 2, 1991 to District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad for according financial sanction to make payment of their salaries, he made C\'rtain queries regarding vacancies and the procedure adopted in making their appointments by proceedings dated December 19, 1991. Thereon the writ petition bearing F No. 20128 of 1992 was filed and is stated to have been allowed by the High Court. Thereon, since salaries were not paid, they filed another writ petition bearing No. 26646 of 1992. In the meanwhile, an appeal came to be filed against the order in the first writ petition. The Division Bench dismis.sed the appeal but on appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition G No. 12338 of 1994, this Court on August 8, 1994 set aside the High_Court's order and remitted the matter to ascertain whether appointments had been made properly and in accordance with law. The learned single Judge in an elaborate Judgment dated February 27, 1996 held that the Management claimed to have selected the petitioners and made them to join duty without issuing any letters of appointment before expiry of two months' H 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A period required under Section 16 and the appointments were not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.