PRAMOD KUMAR versus U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 07-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 559 
PRAMOD KUMAR 
V. 
U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES 
COMMISSION & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2006) 
M/" "CH 7, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND r1ARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Appointment of teacher on ad hoc basis - Possessing a C 
B. Ed. degree from an Institute not recognized under relevant 
statute -
Termination of services - HELD: If essential 
educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not 
satisfied, ordinarily, the same cannot be condoned - An 
appointment contrary to statute/statutory rules would be void D 
in law - The appointment being ad hoc, Management, on 
coming to know of the fact, should have terminated the same 
forthwith - High Court rightly upheld the termination order- It 
is a matter of concern that appointments are being offered 
without verifying whether degrees possessed by candidates E 
are valid or not. 
The appellant, possessing a B.Ed. Degree from 
Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Sankat Mochal Cham, 
Darbhanga, Bihar, was appointed as an ad hoc Assistant 
Teacher in C.T. Grade, in a Management run Inter College F 
in U.P. by its Principal/Manager on 29.11.1988. When it 
transpired that the B. Ed. Degree obtained by the appellant 
was not from an Institution recognized by a University 
under the University Grants Commission Act or any other 
State Act, he was asked to obtain a B.Ed. Degree from a G 
recognized University. Thereafter, he was stated to have 
obtained a requisite degree. On change of the 
Management of the Institution, departmental proceedings 
were initiated against the appellant on the charge that he 
559 
H 
( ' 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A had obtained the appointment on the basis of a fabricated 
and illegal B.Ed. degree. The proceedings culminated in 
termination of his services. Having unsuccessfully 
approached the High Court by way of a writ petition and 
thereafter a special appeal, the teacher filed the instant 
B appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The qualifications for holding a post have 
been laid down under a statute. Any appointment in 
,., 
c violation thereof would be a nullity. If the essential 
educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not 
satisfied, ordinarily, the same cannot be condoned. Such 
an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is 
contrary to the statute/statutory rules wo~ld be void in 
D law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when 
the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Maithili 
Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Mochan Dham from where 
the appellant is said to have obtained B.Ed. degree was 
a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It 
is not in dispute that the said institution was not 
E recognized by any University. A degree is recognized 
only if it is granted by a University constituted in terms 
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under 
any State or Parliamentary Act. No University can be 
established by a private management without any 
F statutory backing. [paras 15, 17, 19] [569-A, C, D, F; 
570-A, 8] 
~ 
..., 
1.2 It is a matter of some concern that appointments 
are being offered by the authorities of the State without 
verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed 
G by the candidate(s) are valid or not. In the instant case, it 
was an ad hoc appointment. The management of the 
school, when it came to learn that the appellant did not 
possess a degree of B.Ed. from a recognized University, 
should have terminated his services forthwith. It did not 
H do so for reasons best known to it. It has not been shown 
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 
561 
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS. 
that the management of the school had any authority to A 
allow the appellant to obtain the requisite degree from any 
other University during the tenure of his services. Even 
the Commission in its counter affidavit did not say so. 
[para 16 and 20] [569-B; 570-C, D] 
Ram Bhagat Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and 8 
Ors. 1997(4) RSJ 134 - distinguished. 
Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) And Anr vs. State of Punjab and 
Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 138; Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. vs. State of 
U.P and Ors. JT 2006(1) SC 331; and Ashok Kumar Sonkar c 
vs. Union of India and Ors. [2007] 4 SCC 54 - relied on. 
2.1 A departmental proceeding against the appellant 
might have been initiated after the change of 
management. Assuming that the said proceeding v1as 
initiated after the contempt proceeding was initiated, the 0 
appellan

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