STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus DEEP NARAIN TRIPATHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 08-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. AND 10RS. 
v. 
DEEP NARAIN TRIPATHI AND ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1996 
[AM. AHMADI CT, N.P. SINGH AND 
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Se1vices Commission (Amendment) 
Ordinance, 1991 (later replaced by UP. Act 2 of 1991)-Section 31-C-Sub-
stantive appointment of ad-hoc appointee-Denial of--f'ost of lecturer--Ad-
hoc appointment duly made under relevant statlltes-The appointment stood 
valid for 7 yeor:Y--Plea that the appointment did not exist since very inception 
as per provisions of UP. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 
D 1980-Held, the plea cannot be taken in the facts and circumstances of the 
case. 
Statute of Gorakhpur University-Statute 11. 13(1)(2)(c). 
E 
State University Act, 1973-Section 50(1-8). 
The respondent was selected as an adlhoc lecturer in 1985 in a 
College affiliated to Poorvanchal University. The College was earlier af-
filiated to Gorakhpur University. The selection was duly made by Selection 
Committee who recommonded his name to the Managing Committee which 
F 
was accepted, and he was appointed. Later in 1986, the appointment was 
also approved by the Vice Chancellor. 
In 1991, Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission 
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 was promulgated. Section 31-C thereof 
G provided that ad-hoc appointment of a teacher between 3.1.84 and 30.6.91, 
who on the date of commencement of the ordinance possessed the 
qualification required for regular appointment to the post under the 
provisions of relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad-hoc appoint-
ment, may be given substantive appointment by the management of the 
College. Selection Committee was to consider the case of such ad-hoc 
H teachers. The case of the respondent was placed before the Selection 
78 
• 
' 
f 
• 
STATE v. D.N. TRIPATill 
79 
Committee, which did not recommend him for substantive appointment A 
and his services were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1992 . 
. The respondent challenged the termination order in the High Court. 
The State contended that initial appointment itself of the respondent was 
illegal becanse he did not possess the requisite qualification for being 
appointed as lecturer and there was no provision for relaxation of B 
qualification under the statutes of Poorvanchal University. 
High Court allowed the case of the respondent, holding that as per 
Section 50(1-8) of State Universities Act, 1973, until making of First 
Statute of Poorvanchal University, the statutes of Gorakhpur University C 
were to be applicable. The statutes of Gorakhpur University had provision 
for relaxation of any qualification. 
The State approached this Court in appeal and contended that the 
appointment did not exist since very inception, as U.P. Higher Education 
Services Commission having come into force, no ad-hoc appointment could D 
have been made. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The stand that ad-hoc appointment could not have been E 
made, as the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, had 
come into force, cannot be taken on behalf of the appellant State in the 
facts and circumstances of the case. It is au admitted position that the 
ad-hoc appointment of the respondent had been held to be valid till 1992 
and only when the Selection Committee constituted under Section 31-C did 
not recommend for substantive appointment of the respondent, the im-
F 
pugned order was issued on 26.6.1992. In this backgronnd it is not possible 
to hold that in the eye of law, the ad-hoc appointment of the respondent 
did not exist since very inception. [83-F-H; 84-A] 
2. Once it has been found that under the relevant statutes of the 
Gorakhpnr University, which were applicable, there was a provision for 
relaxation of any qualification and the power nuder the said provision had 
Leen exercised, which was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Univer-
G 
sity. It was no more open to the Selection Committee constituted under 
Section 31-C to say that there was no provision for relaxation under the 
requisite qualification for being appointed as a lecturer on substantive H 
80 
SUPREME COURT REP or TS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A basis. [84-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.94 of the Allahabad High 
B 
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 24381 of 1992. 
T.N. Singh for R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
R.K. Jain, Ms. Shashi Kiran for M.M. Kash yap for the Respondents. 
C

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