LexYOGENDRA SINGH RAWAT AND ORS. ETC. versus HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
YOGENDRA SINGH RA WAT AND ORS. ETC. A v. ~ HEMW ATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHW AL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. I FEBRUARY 5, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: S. 13(6) ands. 31(3) as amended by U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992-Statute JJ.06 as amended on 31.12.1990-Ad hoc Lecturers in c Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University-Substantive appointment- Qualifications-Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis under s.13(6) between August 1990 and February 1991-Not recommended for substantive appointment-Writ petition dismissed by High Court-Held, in order to get the benefit of the Amendment Act, 1992 ad hoc lecturers must possess the qualifications required for regular appointment under the provisions of D ~ relevant statutes as laid down in clause (c) of s. 31 (3)-Arti.ficial break not to be taken into account while considering period of continuous service- Since the appellants did not fulfil the requisite qualifications, they were rightly not recommended for regular appointment. E The appellants were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, under the provision of s. 13(6) of the ~ U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 on different dates between August 1990 and February 1991. Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (Principal Act) F ~ pfuvides that teachers of the University would be appointed by the Executive ,.. ' Council on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in the manner laid down in the section and that no appointment would be made except after advertisement of the vacancy. By the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992 s. 31 of the Principal Act was amended and it was provided that G lecturers appointed under the provisions of s.13(6) on or before 30.6.1991 t- would be gi\'en substantive appointment by the Executive Council if any substantive vacancy in the same department was available on 22.11.1991 (the date of coming into force of the amending Act) and the lecturer was serving as such on that date continuously since his initial appointment, he possessed on 22.11.19.91 the qualifications required for regular appointment to the H 685 '\.,,...- ' l,,- 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1 A po~1, and was found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive Council. 1'- The appellants were served with a letter dated July 5/17-6-1992 by the University stating that they were not found fit to be regularised on the posts of Lecturers for the reasons that they were not qualified. It was also stated that they were not working on 30th June, 1991. The appellants filed writ B petitions before the High Court ii raying that they be granted substantive appointment as Lecturers in the University in terms of the U.P. Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992. It was contended for the appellants that the qualifications as existing c when the amending Act came into force would be a1iplicable. The University, on the other hand contended that the qualifications as on the date of the ( initial appointment of the appellants would be applicable. The High Court held that the qualifications would be those as existing when the initial appointments under s. 13(6) of the Princi1ial Act were made and not when the amending Act came into force i.e., 22.11.1991. The High Court found D that none of the appellants sati~fied the requisite qualifications or the criteria µ and dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, this Court E HELD: 1.1. In order to get the benefit of the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992 amending the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the ad hoc lecturers must possess the qualifications required for regular appointment under the provisions of the relevant statutes as laid down in sub- clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 31(3) of the Act The effect of the amendment would be that any lecturer who was appointed under sub-section (6) of Section F 13, without reference to the Selection Committee would be given ~11bstantive .. y ap1iointment on the conditions that (1) a ~11bstantive vacancy was available on November 22,· 1991; (2) his appointment was on or before June 30, 1991 and he was serving as such on November 22, 1991 continuously since his initial appointment; (3) he continued to possess qualifications as prescribed under G relevant provisions of the statute
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.