STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus SATYAVRATA TARAN

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 01-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011J 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 469 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
SATYAVRATA TARAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 10554 of 2011) 
DECEMBER 01, 2011 
(H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Madhya Pradesh Educational Service 
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 - r.13(5) - Pay 
scale - Senior scale/selection grade - Grant of - Whether C 
Assistant Professors appointed through different means, 
modes and sources including emergency appointees in 
terms of r. 13(5), were entitled to claim benefit of the services 
rendered prior to their reg:!larization for grant of senior/ 
selection grade pay scales - Held: Voluminous materials D 
produced by both the parties in support of their submissions 
in the form of schemes, Govt. orders and circulars were not 
by way of affidavit and the opposite party had no knowledge 
thereof - Matter therefore remanded to High Court for 
consideration afresh with liberty to both the parties to place 
E 
on record all the documents on which they intend to rely in 
support of their case including the manner, mode and the 
source of appointment of each ·of the Assistant Professors -
Chief Justice of the High Court to assign all the matters to 
the Principal Bench itself so that the matters could be finally 
F 
settled by one Bench, instead of two or three Benches taking 
different views on the same set of facts and on the questions 
of/aw. 
The respondent was appointed on the post of 
Assistant Professor on emergency basis under Rule 
G 
13(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service 
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 with an 
express condition of immediate termination of his 
emergency appointment, without notice, on the 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A availability of Pub.lie Service Commission's panel of 
selected candidates. Subsequently, the respondent 
cleared Public Service Commission Examination and 
consequently, as per the condition of his appointment 
order, his services were regularized under M.P. 
B Educational Service (Collegiate branch) Recruitment 
Rules, 1990. In the meantime, the State Government 
issued a Circular dated 12.02.1992 for addition of period 
of service rendered by teachers, prior to their service in 
the present College or University as Assistant Professor 
c for conferring the benefit of senior/ selection grade pay 
scale but subject to certain conditions. The respondent, 
being aggrieved by non counting of his period of service 
rendered as an emergency appointee on the post of 
Assistant Professor by the State Government for the 
0 purpose of granting higher pay scale, filed a Writ Petition 
before the High Court. The same was allowed. Aggrieved 
by the same, the State Government preferred Writ Appeal 
before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ 
Appeal and directed the State Government to count the 
period of service rendered by the respondent on 
E emergency appointment for granting the benefit of the 
senior/selection grade pay scales. 
In the instant appeal fUed by the State Government, 
the question which arose for consideration was: Whether 
F the Assistant Professors appointed through different 
means, modes and sources including emergency 
appointees in terms of Rule 13(5) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment 
Rules, 1967 were entitled to claim the benefit of the 
G services rendered by them prior to their regularization for 
grant of s~nior/selection grade pay scales. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Voluminous materials were produced in 
H the form of schemes, Govt. orders and circulars produced 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. 
471. 
SATYAVRATA TARAN 
by both the counsel appearing for the parties. The 
A 
documents were not even produced by way of affidavit 
and since the counsel on the opposite side had no 
knowledge of those documents, it is fit to remand these 
matters back to the High Court for fresh disposal in 
accordance with law. [Para 11) [483-D-E] 
B 
1.2. The orders passed by the High Court in all these 
matters are set aside and the matter is remanded back 
to the High Court for its fresh consideration in 
accordance with law. Liberty is given to both the parties C 
to place on record all the documents on which they 
intend to rely in support of their case including the 
manner, mode and the source of appointment of each of 
the Assistant Professors. [Para 13) [483-H; 484-A-B] 
1.3. The Chief Justice of the Ma

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