RAMAN SINGH versus THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, JALAUN AT ORAI & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 08-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
RAMAN SINGH
v.
THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS,
JALAUN AT ORAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5265 of 2019)
JULY 08, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA  Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Appointment – Adhoc appointment of Teacher – On the basis
of leave vacancy – After the leave vacancy ceased to exist, ad hoc
appointee absorbed in the substantive vacancy by school
management – Writ petition seeking direction to State to release his
salary treating his ad hoc appointment as an appointment on
permanent basis – Dismissal of writ petition by Single Judge of
High Court – Special appeal dismissed by Division Bench of High
Court –  On appeal, held: The purported appointment of the ad hoc
appointee to the substantive post was without approval of District
Inspector of Schools  – No procedure as required by law was followed
in making the appointment to the substantive post – The appellant
had continued in service by virtue of interim orders – Appellant
had no right to claim conversion of his ad hoc appointment into a
substantive appointment  –  It is directed that steps be taken to fill
up the post on a regular basis – However, in the facts of the case,
appellant is allowed to continue on the post on purely ad hoc basis
until a regularly appointed candidate is selected.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. The appellant was appointed purely on an
ad hoc basis in a leave vacancy which arose in the institution.  On
the death of the regularly appointed candidate, the leave vacancy
ceased to exist. Once a substantive vacancy arose, it was required
to be filled up in accordance with law. The appellant had no right
or entitlement to claim that his appointment on an ad-hoc basis in
a leave vacancy should be converted into a substantive
appointment. [Para 14] [277-F-G]
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 273
  273
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
2. The purported appointment of the appellant to a
substantive post was without the approval of the District Inspector
of Schools (DIOS). The DIOS had rejected the application of the
management to absorb the appellant to a substantive post over
24 years ago on the ground that his appointment would be in
violation of the applicable law. No procedure as required by law
was followed in making the appointment. The appellant however
instituted proceedings and has continued in service by virtue of
the interim orders.  The person who was appointed on the post
in accordance with law in 1997, was allegedly prevented from
joining his post. The method adopted by the appellant and the
management is unsustainable in law. [Para 15] [278-A-D]
3.  The ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued
to the effect that necessary steps be taken to fill up the post on a
regular basis as expeditiously as possible within a period of four
months.  In order to ensure that there should be no dislocation
of work in the educational institution, the appellant, having regard
to facts and circumstances of the present case, should be allowed
to continue purely on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed
candidate is selected. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India it is also directed that his salary
should be paid over for the period for which he works until a
regular candidate is appointed. [Para 16] [278-D-F]
Pramila Mishra v Deputy Director of Education
1997 (2) ESC 1284 ALL (FB)  –  referred to.
Case Law Reference
1997 (2) ESC 1284 ALL(FB)
  referred to
       Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5265
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1873 of 2013
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Parmatma Singh, Mayank Jain,
Madhur Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave
granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 30 October 2017 of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing
the Special Appeal filed by the appellant and affirming the judgment of
the Single Judge dated 9 October 2013.
3. The appellant was appointed by the Committee of Management
of the third respondent as an ad-hoc Lecturer in English on 11 August
1993 against a short-term vacancy which arose upon the grant of three
months’ leave to the then incumbent in the post.  On 1 October 1993, the
regularly appointed l

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