STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI PANDEY

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 13-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT.GAYATRIDEVIPANDEY 
AUGUST 13, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
U.P. Regulatio11 of Ad hoc Appointme11t ( 011 posts) within the purview 
of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979: Rules 4, 5 and 6. 
C 
Service Law--Co11finnation---Responde11t appoi11ted as school 
psychologist and later selected on regular service by Public Service Commis-
sio11-011 abolitio11 of post she was temporarily appointed as L. T. Grade 
teacher and was subsequently regularised-Later she was appoi11ted as Assis-
tant P;ychologist 011 ad hoc basis i11 Bureau of Psychology-Te!ms of ap-
pointment provided that her service ca11 be tenninated at a11y time without 
D prior 11otice and can be reverted back to her original post-Within four mo11ths 
respondent was promoted as Vocational Guida11ce Counsellor 011 ad hoc 
basis-Her representation for co11fim1atio11 as Assista11t Psychologist rejected 
by authorities-Writ challenging the impug11ed orde,-.//eld on in service 
candidate who has already been holding a lien in a post but working in 
E another department 011 ad hoc basis cannot be considered to be a candidate 
appointed from the open market for the pwpose of regularisation required 
u11der the Rules-View taken by the competent authority cannot be said to be 
vitiated by any error of law warranting inteiference for quashing the regularisa-
tion. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11048 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.91 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 20281 of 1988. 
G 
D.V. Sehgal, Ms. Monika Gosain and R.B. Misra, for the Appellants. 
R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
642 
f 
STATE v. G.D. PANDEY 
643 
Initially, the special leave petition was filed against an order of the A 
learned Single Judge made on September 23, 1991 in Civil Misc. Writ 
Petition No. 20281 of 1988 directing the State to promote Gayatri Devi 
Pandey to the post of Vocational Guidance Counsellor. On August 21, 
1995, when the matter was heard for some time, it was suggested to the 
counsel whether the writ petition itself could be disposed of on merits, 
instead of remitting the matter to the High Court for decision on merits. B 
In fairness, both the counsel agreed that the writ petition itself could be 
disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition pending in the 
High Court was withdrawn. We have heard the petition on merits. Conse-
quently, all the relevant material has been placed before us. 
Smt. Gayatri Devi was initially appointed as a School Psychologist on 
December 17, 1962; she joined the post on January 3, 1963 and was 
selected on regular basis by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission 
c 
on August 5, 1964. Since those posts came to be abolished, she had 
consented to her being appointed as a L.T. Grade teacher; consequently, D 
she came to be appointed on March 5, 1966. It is also clear from the record 
that she was also regularised as L.T. Grade Teacher w.e.f. April 1, 1965. 
By proceedings dated April 18, 1975, she was appointed on ad hoc basis 
as Assistant Psychologist in the scale of Rs. 400-750 in the Bureau qf 
Psychology subject to the terms that her service will be terminated at any 
time \vithout prior notice and she would be reverted back to her original E 
post. Later, she came to be promoted further on ad hoc basis by proceed-
ings dated August 12, 1975 within four months as Vocational Guidance 
Counsellor in the scale of Rs. 450-850 as was existing at the time. Her 
representation for confirmation as Assistant Psychologist came to be 
rejected by the Department. Resultant Writ Petition No. 3096/83 was F 
disposed of by order dated February 17, 1988 directing the authorities to 
consider and decide the representation with a speaking order. The 
authorities by proceedings dated July 13, 1988 rejected the representation. 
Calling that order in question, the present writ petition came to be filed. 
Shri R.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for Smt. Gayatri Devi Pandey, G 
contended that by operation of U.P. Regulation of Ad hoc Appointment 
(on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 
(for short, the 'Rules') issued by the Governor, in exercise of the power 
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, procedure is prescribed 
for regularisation of the ad hoc Appointments in accordance with Rule 4 H 
644 
SUPRE

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