SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER 12, 1995 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j 
Service Law : 
University Statute (Gorakhpur wziversity)-C/auses 11, 13 sub clause 
C (a) & (b)-Post of Lecture,-Minimum Qualification-Relaxation of-Power 
of Selection Committee-Person appointed not holding minimum qualifica-
tion-Held, the selection committee cannot give relaxation-Appointment of 
a candidate who did not possess the required qualification though ad-
hoc-Held, not justified. 
D 
E 
F 
U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 198{)-Sections 12 & 
16-Ad-hoc appointment-Regularisatioll --Since the condition precedent for 
making ad-hoc appointment was not satisfied and the appellant did not 
possess the minimum qualificatiol! for such appoilltmel!l--The appointment 
held, il!va/id and inoperative. 
Sections 31-B & 31-C--Regularisation--Initial appointment wholly 
without jurisdiction-Therefore, the subsequent appoilltment cannot be 
regularised as the same was l!Ot made Oil the date specified-Availability of 
substantive vacancy-Condition !!Of fulfil/ed-{Jnder the circumstances, held, 
the questiol! of regularisation does not wise. 
Uttar Pradesh State 
U!!iversities Act, 1973--Section 35(2) and 
(3}-Tenninatioll--Approval by Vice Chal!cellor required-No such approval 
was givm-Held, eve!! then the tennillatioll did !!Of become !!U/l and void. 
Sectioll 60-A al!d 60-B--Approval of Govemmellt for sanctioll for the 
G post-Held-Creation of a post and payment of salary are two distinct con-
cepts-State can sanction creation of post though the payment is not made 
by it. 
The Government of Uttar Pradesh granted sanction for M.Sc. 
(Agronomy) in the Faculty of Science but in the absence of financial 
H resources it was decided that the payment of salary would be made for a 
568 
SANTOSH KR. SINGH v. STATE 
569 
period of one year by the Management of the College. Therefore, the A 
College issued an advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Agronomy and 
also declared that the Management has power to grant relaxation in 
educational qualifications. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the 
appellant submitted his application fol' the post. He was selected and 
appointed as lecturer on 1.1.84 in the post-Graduate Agronomy Depart-
B 
ment. While continuing as lecturer he passed his final year M.Sc. (Agricul-
ture). In 1985 the College issued a fresh advertisement for filling up the 
post of Lecturer in Agronomy on ad-hoc basis. After informing the 
Secretary, Higher Education Service Commission a Selection Committee 
was constituted by the Vice. Chancellor for selecting the candidate. The 
Committee again selected the appellant and the Registrar of University C 
approved the appointment of the appellant as an ad-hoc teacher in 
Ab>ronomy for a period of six months from the date the appellant had been 
holding the post al"ter his selection. The Director of Higher Education 
Communicated the approval of the Government for creation of a post of 
Lecturer in the college in Agronomy. The Manager of the College requested D 
the Service Commission, that the post may be advertised and the appoint-
ment may be made under the Service Commission Act but in order to avoid 
any dislocation in the teaching the appellant may be allowed to continue. 
The Vice Chancellor approved the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant as 
Lecturer for a further period of six months with a break of one day or till 
the selected candidate takes charge whichever is earlier. 
In the meantime an Ordinance was promulgated which was replaced 
E 
by an Act and Section 31-B was added to the Service Commission Act 1980. 
The Director of Higher Education regularised the service of the appellant 
under the said Act and directed the payment of salary to the appellant. F 
The Principal of the College also passe\l order that the appellant should 
be paid salary from the date of the creation of the post i.e. 1.2.1986 and be 
paid salary, D.A. and the permissible perquisites of the State Government 
as per the Universities Act. The Director of Higher Education, U.P. then 
asked the Principal of the College that salary of the appellant should be 
stopped at once. Another order was passed whereby regularisation of the G 
appellant was cancelled on the ground that the approval was obtained on 
wrong premises. Thereafter the College terminated the services of the 
appellant. 
The appellant filed a Writ Petition against the order of the

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