SUDAMA SINGH versus NATH SARAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1049 · Decided: 13-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUDAMA SINGH 
A 
v. 
NATH SARAN SINGH & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 13, 1987. 
1 
[E.S VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: s. 16 GG 1Regu-
( 
lations, Chapter II, Regulation 3(1)(b)-Seniority-Ad hoc Lecturers 
-~ 
deemed to be appointed as such on substantive basis from same date-
Held seniority to be determined on the basis of age. 
c 
A large number of teachers working in the educational institu-
tions governed by the• Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, 
were appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis. The question of reg-
ularisation of their services engaged the attention of the State Govern-
ment and it was decided to amend the Act by an Ordinance. Section 
16-GG was accordingly introduced on April, 21, 1977. The Ordinance 
D 
was replaced by the Uttar Prlldesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 
1977. 
~ 
The appellant and respondent No. 1 were both appionted as 
Assistant Teachers in an Intermediate College with effect from July 8, 
1967. Respondent No. 1 was promoted by the management as•.Lecturer 
E 
in Hindi on an ad hoc basis with effect from March 1, 1976. The District 
.... 
Inspector of Schools approved of it on October 5, 1976. Subsequently 
on November 20, 1976 he again made an order promoting both the 
appellant and respondent No. 1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respec-
lively on an ad hoc basis. Their services came to be regularised by 
r 
virtue of the new provision. s. 16 GG, with effect from April 21, 1977. 
F 
After their services were so regularised, dispute arose regarding the 
seniority. 
While the first respondent claimed seniority over the appellant on 
the basis of his appointment/promotion made on March 1, 1976, the 
appellant claimed that he being older than the first respondent was 
G 
entitled to be treated as senior by virtue of the second part of clause (b) 
4 
of regulation 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the Act. 
The District Inspector of Schools came to the conclusion that the 
fortuitous appointment/promotion of the first respondent on March 1, 
1976 could not have any effect on the question of seniority between H 
1049 
1050 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1988] l S.C.R. 
A them, and held that since the appellant and the first respondent had r 
been accepted to be promoted in substantive capacity on the same day, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
and since the appellant was older than respondent No. 1, the appellant 
should be considered as senior by virtue of the second sentence in clause 
(b) of regulation 3(1) of the Regulations. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the first respondent filed a 
writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed, the order of the 
} 
Disctrict Inspector of Schools was set aside and it was declared that the 
first respondent was senior to the appellant on the ground that the first 
respondent had been promoted to the post of lecturer on March 1, 1976, 
pursuant to certain orders issued under the Act which continued to be 
) 
in operation until section 16GG was brought into force. 
~ ~
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave. 
HELD: 1. Th~ appellant is senior to the first respondent. [I056E] 
2.1 What is crucial for the purposes of the case is the date from 
which the appellant and the first respondent should be deemed to be 
holding their posts in substantive capacity. Section 16GG of the Act 
clearly lays down that any teacher whose services are regularised 
should be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity with 
effect from the date of its commencement. It does any say that the 
services of such teachers should be deemed to have been regularised 
with effect from the date from which they were continuously officiating 
in the post in question. The date of commencement of the section being 
April, 21, 1977 both the appellant and the first respondent, who were 
by then holding the I!.osts of Lecturers on an ad hoc basis are to be 
deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity on the same 
date, that is, April 21, 1977. [IOSSG-H; 1056A] 
2.2 On the question of seniority, cl. (b) of Regulation (3)(1) of the 
Regulations provides that the seniority of teachers in a grade shall be 
determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade 
and if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date seniorty 
should be determined on the basis of age. [I056C] 
In the instant case, the appellant is older in age than the 
first respondent. He should, therefore, be treated as 

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