VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY AD HOC TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus THE BIHAR STATE UNIVERSITY (C.C.) SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VEER KUNW AR SINGH UNIVERSITY AD HOC IBACHERS 
'.>.. 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
TIIE BIHAR STAIB UNIVERSITY (C.C.) SERVICE COMMISSION AND 
ORS. 
B 
MAY 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
... 
"" 
c 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Practice of appointing ad-hoc teachers in Universities 
deprecated-Held: If a Government of a State or a University which is also 
a State within the meaning of Art.12, despite repeated observations of the 
Superior Courts, continue to do so, such a practice must be condemned-
D Creation of sanctioned posts is sine qua non for recruitment-Any appointment 
made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated 
under Art. 14 as also in violation of the provisions of the relevant Act and 
.,._ 
.. 
the subordinate legislation framed thereunder would be wholly illegal and 
without jurisdiction-Bihar State University Act, 1976-ss. 57 & 58-
E 
Constitution of India, 1950--Arts. 12 & 14. 
In various Universities in the State of Bihar, ad hoc teachers were being 
appointed without any sanction therefor. In 1989, the matter came up before 
\= 
the Supreme Court which deprecated the said practice and thereafter directed 
the Bihar University Service Commission to advertise the posts available. The 
F 
Court also asked the Government to consider the workload in each University 
and sanction additional posts as may be required. The additional posts were 
,. 
,,, 
directed to be filled regularly either by direct recruitment or by promotion 
as per rules and not by ad hoc appointment. Further all the ad hoc teachers 
against sanctioned posts were asked to continue till selection was made by 
the University Service Commission. 
G 
Subsequently in 1993 an advertisement was issued by the Bihar 
University Service Commission for appointment of teachers in different 
Universities. At that point of time, additional posts were not sanctioned. 
\,...,... 
Appellants-ad hoc teachers made representation before the Chancellor for 
regularization of their services and subsequently filed a writ petition before 
H 
396 
VEER. KUNWAR SING! Ulll. AD HOC TEACHERS ASSON. v. BlllAR ST ATE UNI. (C.C.) SERVIQ; COMMISSION 
3 97 
the High Court. The High Court noticed that the time frame prescribed by A 
Supreme Court in the said judgment had not been adhered to and that the 
controversies raised before it did not give rise to any serious dispute in law, 
rather involved a careful balancing of equities, with a view to give effect to the 
said judgment of the Supreme Court. In that situation, the parties agreed to 
consent, pursuant to which a consent order was passed by the High Court. In B 
terms of the consent order, the vacant posts were to be identified by a 
Commith:e consisting of the Vice-Chancellors of the various Universities· 
concerned with a retired Judge as its Chairman and the finding of the 
Committee in this regard was to be final. 
In appeals to this Court, it was contended by the Appellants that the High C 
Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment, insofar 
. as by reason of the consent order, it neither could have modified the terms of 
the order passed by this Court, nor could it in contravention of the provisions 
of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 as also the statutes framed thereunder, 
appoint a committee of the Vice Chancellors in place and stead of the Bihar 
University Service Commission, which is a statutory body. 
D 
.,, 
Dismissing the appeals and the connected interlocutory applications, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In terms of the Section 57 of the Bihar State University 
Act, 1976, all sanctioned vacant posts were required to be filled up by E 
candidates who were qualified therefor and who had been selected by the 
University Service Commission, which is a statutory body. Clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 58 of the said Act provides for appointment on temporary 
basis without following the procedure prescribed in Section 57 of the Act; 
but such appointments shall not exceed a period of six months. 
(Para 26) [406-G-H; 407-A-B) 
1.2. Any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme of 
equality as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution as also in violation 
of the provisions of the Act and the subordinate legislations framed thereunder 
F 
would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 
G 
[Para 27) (407-8-C) 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., [2006) 
>- ; 
4 sec 1, followed 
R.S. 

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