RATTAN LAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 16-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

569 
RAl'TAN LAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF H.ARYANA & ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1985 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and 16 -
State 
Government - Appointment of 'ad hoc' teachers in regular vacan-
cies - Validity and legality of. 
On the question whether it is open to the State Government 
to appoint teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the coppnencement of an 
academic year and terminate their services before the coomence-
ment of the next summer vacation, or earlier, to appoint them 
again on an ad-hoc basis at the coomencement 
of next academic 
year and to terminate their se!'Vices before the c011111encement of 
the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do 
so year after year. 
HELD: 1. The policy of "ad-hocism" followed by the State 
Government in the appointment of teachers for quite a long period 
has led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. The 
State Government is expected to function as a model employer. 
[571 E] 
In the instant case the State Government is directed to 
take 1mmedlate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant 
rules the vacancies in which those who are appointed on an ad-hoc 
basis are now working and to allow all those who are now holding 
these posts on an ad-hoc basis to remain in those posts till the 
vacanciea are duly filled up. These ad-hoc teachers shall be paid 
salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long 
as they held office. Those who are entitled to maternity or 
medical leave, shsll al.so . be granted such leave in accordance 
with the rules. [571 F, 572 A~B] 
2. The State Government hss a duty to appoint teachers in 
existing vacancies in · acordance with the rules. The State 
Government hss failed to discharge that duty. A substantial 
nwnber of ad-hoc appontments are made in the existing vacancies 
which hsve remained unfilled for three to four years, In some 
cases the . appointments are made for a period of six months only 
and they are rene""d after a break of a few days. [571 A-B] 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
The number of teachers in the State who are appointed on 
such ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If. the teachers had been 
appointed regularly, they would have ·been entitled to the 
benefits of swmner vacation along with the salary and allowances 
payable in respect of that period and 
to all other privileges 
such as .casual leave medical leave, maternity leave etc. avail-
able to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to 
these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious 
system of appointment adopted by tlte State Government. [571 11-C] 
3. These teachers who constitute the bull< of the educated 
linemployed are compelled to accept theae jobs on an ad-hoc basis 
with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to 
be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel 
policy.. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the 
educational institutions and the children studying there. [571 D] 
.QRlGINAL JURISDICTION 
of 1985 etc. 
Writ Petitions Nos. 
4600,4600A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
' 
.Rishi Kumar, S.M. Ashri, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev, 
Mrs. 
Vinod Arya, R.C. Pathak, Vishnu Mathur, Mahabir Singh, Pankaj 
Kalra, Serva Mitter, R.P. Singh, K.C. Dua, N.D. Garg, s. Sriniva-
san, Rathin Dass, K.K. Gupta, S;K. llagga, R. Ramachandran S.K. 
Bisaria, Liixmi Arvind, R.P. Gupta, R. Ilana, Ranbir Singh Yadav, 
H.M. Singh, Mrs. s.c. Jindal, R.K. Agnihotri, 11.s. Gupta, P.c. 
Kapur, Kripal Singh and Amlan Ghosh for the Petitioners. 
V.C.'Mahajan, I;s. Goer, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar for 
the Respondents. 
; . 
The '·Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
\ ' 
VENKATARAMIAll, J. In all these petitions 
the 
common 
question which arises for decision is whether it is open to the 
State Government to apoint teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the 
·commencement of an academic year and terminate their 
services 
·before the commmencement of the next summer vacation or.earlier 
to ·appoillt them again on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of 
next academic year 
and to terminate their services before the 
commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to 
continue to do so year after year. A substantial number of such 
ad-hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies which have 
RAITAN LAL v. ST
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.