Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
J.A.S. INTER COLLEGE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)292
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
It was mentioned in the order dated April 8, 1996 that
in spite of adjournment of the case repeatedly, counter
affidavit has not been filed. Consequently, this Court
directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers as required
by the petitioners within the specified time. It is now the
admitted position that eight teachers selected by the U.P.
Secondary Education Service Commission were appointed. One
of them had not joined the service. Consequently, seven
persons out of 18 have taken charge. Resultantly, 11
candidates were not recommended for appointment by the
Commission. The petitioner-college appears have appointed 11
teachers. It would be obvious that these 11 teachers would
be ad hoc appointees pending disposal of the writ petition
and they would not and should not claim any right or equity
whatsoever pursuant to, the said appointment. Under sub-
section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act 5 of
1982), appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-sections
(1) and (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of
the dates mentioned therein, namely, (a) when the candidates
recommended by the Commission or Board, as the case may be,
join the post: (b) when the post of one month preferred to
under sub-section (4) of Section 11 express; or (c) 30th day
of June following the day of such ad hoc appointment. In
that view, the ad hoc appointments though not consistent
with Section 5 of the Ist Removal of Difficulties Order,
1981 and, therefore, not according to rules, would remain
operative until either of the events occur. The said
arrangements of ad hoc appointment, if the writ petition is
disposed of earlier, would be subject to the result in the
writ petition. In other words, the ad hoc appointees should
be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission and
recommended for appointment in accordance with the said Act.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2