RAVINDRA SINGH versus DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 06-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
RAVINDRA SINGH
v.
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9228 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 06, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and
Selection Boards Act, 1982:
First Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order dated
1981 – Second Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981 – Appointment
of appellant-teacher by Management in a substantive vacancy –
Non-adherence to the procedure contemplated in paragraph 5 of
the  First Removal of Difficulties Order – Claim for salary by
appellant – Refusal of financial approval by District Inspector of
Schools – Correctness of – Held:  The analysis of the 1982 Act and
the Removal of the Difficulties Order by the Allahabad High Court
in Radha Raizada suggested that the Management has very limited
scope to make appointment to the substantive vacancy in their
Institution – s.18 of the Act of 1982, lays down the process for
direct appointment of ad hoc teachers but before the Management
takes any step to fill up vacancy, the conditions laid therein must be
peremptorily satisfied – The Management is required to firstly notify
the vacancy to the Commission and in turn, the Selection Commission
is expected to recommend a suitable candidate within one year of
such notification – Secondly, the post should have remained vacant
for more than 2 months – Only if these two conditions are satisfied,
the Management can take short term measures – Further stipulations
to this process provided in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the First Removal
of Difficulties Order are that only when the vacancy cannot be filled
by promotion under paragraph 4, the paragraph 5 permits ad hoc
appointment by direct recruitment –  Appellant’s appointment by the
Management, was not in accordance with paragraph 5 of the
Removal of Difficulties Order –   The decision repudiating the salary
claim for the appellant was in order since the Management failed
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 58
58
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
to adhere to the due process in filling up the substantive vacancy –
Moreover, the State had imposed a ban on appointment during the
relevant period – Therefore, the appellant cannot enforce a claim
for salary against the State – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The UP Secondary Education Services
Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 was enacted to
constitute Selection Committees and Selection Boards to select
teachers for appointment in Government Aided Private
Educational Institutions. Since the Commission failed to
commence functioning before 01.11.1983, in order to address
the difficulties in the interregnum, the Government had issued
the First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission
(Removal of Difficulties) Order dated 1981 followed by the 2nd
Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981, to fill up short term
vacancies.  Section 16 of the Act of 1982, provides for recruitment
of teachers by the Commission on the requisition made by the
Management and then the selected teachers are allotted to the
Intuitions/Colleges as per their requirement.  When the
Commission is unable to allot teachers, Section 18 comes into
operation and permits appointment of ad hoc teachers, as a
transient measure.  [Para 9] [63-B-D]
2. Section 18 of the Act of 1982, lays down the process for
direct appointment of ad hoc teachers but before the Management
takes any step to fill up vacancy, the conditions laid therein must
be peremptorily satisfied. The Management is required to firstly
notify the vacancy to the Commission and in turn, the Selection
Commission is expected to recommend a suitable candidate
within one year of such notification. Secondly, the post should
have remained vacant for more than 2 months. Only if these two
conditions are satisfied, the Management can take short term
measures. Further stipulations to this process are provided in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order.
Only when the vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under
paragraph 4, the paragraph 5 permits ad hoc appointment by direct
recruitment.   [Para 12] [67-C-E-]
RAVINDRA SINGH v. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
3.  Paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, was
substituted by the Second Removal of the Difficulties Order, which
enabled the Management to make appointment against

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