LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHARDINDU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·~
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
v.
SHARDINDU
MAY 16, 2007
[A.K. MATHURANDTARUN CHATTERJEE,JJ.]
B
Service law:
_,. -{
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993-Sections 5 and c
6--Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training [SCERT}
in a State selected as Chairperson of National Council for Teacher Education
[NCTE} under the Act for a period of four years or till he attained the age
of 60 years, whichever was earlier-Pursuant to inquiry conducted by State
Vigilance Commission for his tenure as Director ofSCERT. a First Information
Report registered implicating him-State Government suspended him pending D
commencement of disciplinary proceeding and Union of India terminated his
deputation as Chairperson, NCTE-Correctness of-Held-Tenure of
l )'
Chairperson could not be cut short-It was a tenure post, and none of
disqualifications mentioned in Section 5 of the Act had been incurred-In
absence of any provision that for previous misconduct tenure could be cut
short, Central Government could not e'xercise that power; it was more so in E
view of clear provisions of disqualification and removal in the Act-As
language of those provisions was plain and unambiguous, Supreme Court
could not supply casus omissus by exercising power under Article 142 of
Constitution, 1950-Also, appointment was statutory, and not at pleasure of
President of India-Though incumbent held a lien on his post in State, his F
-...-
appointment was not purely on deputation as selection was under the Act;
it was more like a permission as after expiry of four years, Chairperson was
left with some period of service and permission was sought from State for
joining.
Respondent was working as Director, State Council for Educational G
Research and Training [SCERT) in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was
selected as Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education [NCTE)
--(
under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 for a period of
1039
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A four years or till he attained the age of 60 years, whichever was earlier. He
was relieved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and assumed the charge of
the new post However, while he was working as Director of SCERT an inquiry
was conducted by the State Vigilance Commission. Based on report therein a
First Information Report was registered implicating him and the State
Government suspended him pending commencement of disciplinary
B proceeding. When this fact came to the notice of the appellant, Union of India-
terminated his deputation as Chairperson. NCTE. He challenged this before
the High Court in a writ petition, and same was allowed. Hence, the appellant
filed the present appeal by Special Leave Petition.
Appellant contended that (i) the present contingency viz. if the incumbent
C is charge-sheeted for his past conduct then what is the remedy, was not
visualized by draftsmen of the Act, hence, the lacunae and vacuum can be filled
up by the Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (ii)
the respondent was an appointee of the State ofUttar Pradesh and had a lien
on his post there, therefore, even if he has not been sent on deputation by the
D State of Uttar Pradesh, still he would be deemed to be on deputation (iii) since
the deputation period has been terminated, the respondent can be sent back
to his parent department (iv) the appointing authority is the Union of India
and it is a pleasure appointment, therefore under Article 310 of the
Constitution of India, the President can terminate the services of an
incumbent, and they need not to follow the procedure laid down under Sections
E 5 and 6 of the Act.
F
Respondent contended that as his appointment was statutory, the
termination thereof could only be done in the manner provided under the Act
viz. i.e. Section 6, and there was no question of filling up the lacunae as the
Act was very clear.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD i. From the scheme of the Act and the Rules it is apparent that
the appointment of the Chairperson of the NCTE is a tenure post for a period
of four years or any person attaining the age of sixty years whichever is
earlier. Section 5 deals with disqualification and none of the disqualifications
G mentioned in that section has been incurred by the respondent.
[Para 16] (1050-B-C]
2.1. If there was any provi~ion that for his previous misconduct his tenure
could be cut shExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.