Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ravindra Singh, was appointed as an LT Grade Teacher at Bilhaur Inter College, Kanpur Nagar, in a substantive vacancy that arose after the transfer of Ramesh Chandra Pandey. The appointment was made by the Management during a period when the Government had imposed a ban on all types of recruitment. The appellant served without remuneration since 1997 and sought financial consent and approval for his service from the District Inspector of Schools. The Inspector rejected his representation on 16.02.2000, observing that the ban prohibited recruitment and that the appointment was made without financial implications. The appellant challenged this decision before the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.38790 of 2000, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 12.04.2016, and the Special Appeal No.345 of 2016 was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.05.2016. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The legal issues centered on whether the Management had the power to appoint ad hoc teachers during a ban period and whether the appointment complied with the procedure under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 and the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The appellant argued that the Management was competent to make ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the Act and that the High Court misconstrued the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada. The respondents contended that the appointment was invalid because the Management failed to first consider promotion of senior teachers as required under Paragraph 4 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, and that the ban on recruitment did not affect the power to make ad hoc appointments but the procedure must be followed. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order, noting that Section 18 permits ad hoc appointments only when the vacancy has been notified to the Commission and the Commission has failed to recommend a candidate within one year or the post has remained vacant for more than two months. Even then, Paragraph 4 mandates that the vacancy must first be filled by promotion of the senior-most teacher, and only if that is not possible can direct recruitment be made under Paragraph 5. The Court found that the Management did not follow this procedure and directly appointed the appellant, rendering the appointment invalid. The Court also referred to the decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., which approved the ratio in Radha Raizada. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to financial approval or salary.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Teachers - Ad Hoc Appointment - Substantive Vacancy - The Management of an aided institution appointed the appellant directly against a substantive vacancy without first considering promotion of senior teachers as required under Paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Supreme Court held that such appointment was invalid and the appellant was not entitled to financial approval or salary. (Paras 10-12) B) Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 - Section 18 - Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 - Paragraphs 4 and 5 - The Court interpreted that Section 18 and the Removal of Difficulties Order empower the Management to make ad hoc appointments only when conditions precedent are satisfied, i.e., the vacancy has been notified to the Commission and the Commission has failed to recommend a candidate within one year or the post has remained vacant for more than two months. Even then, promotion must be attempted before direct recruitment. (Paras 10-11) C) Service Law - Ban on Recruitment - Effect on Management's Power - The Court clarified that a ban on recruitment by the Government does not denude the Management of its power to make ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, but such appointments must strictly follow the procedure under the Removal of Difficulties Order. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's appointment by the Management against a substantive vacancy during the ban period, without following the promotion procedure under Paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, entitles him to financial approval and salary from the authorities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the appellant's appointment was invalid as the Management failed to follow the promotion procedure under Paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 before resorting to direct recruitment. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to financial approval or salary.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy requires compliance with promotion procedure under Paragraph 4 of First Removal of Difficulties Order
- 1981 before direct recruitment under Paragraph 5
- Management cannot appoint directly without first considering promotion
- Ban on recruitment does not affect power to make ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982
- but conditions precedent must be satisfied.
