Case: Committee of Management Vs. The Director of Higher Education &amp; Others

this Court granted an interim stay of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. On 14th May, 2009 this Court modified the interim order passed on 28th February, 2005 by requiring a report to be filed whether the respondents fulfil the requirements of Section 31- C of the Act.18. In compliance with the order dated 14th May, 2009 the Director of Higher Education passed an order on 1st December, 2009 to the effect that the respondents “who were appointed as part-time teachers, substantially fulfil the requirements of Section 31(C) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980.”19. A reading of the order dated 1st December, 2009 gives a clear indication that even as recently as 2009 the Director of Higher Education was of the view that the appointment of the respondents was only on a part-time basis and not on an ad hoc basis. Since the respondents were not appointed on an ad hoc basis (even if they fulfilled the requirements of Section 31-C of the Act), they had no right to be regularized since they were not so appointed.20. On these broad facts, we heard all the affected parties on the merits of the case.Findings21. In our opinion, the High Court erred in taking the view that it did. There is absolutely no doubt that the respondents had not applied for the post of ad hoc Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988. On the contrary, the respondents moved independent applications to the effect that they had come to know through reliable sources that the post of a part-time Lecturer was available. It is on the basis of these applications that the respondents were appointed on a part-time basis for a fixed period by the College and on a fixed salary. There is absolutely no question of the respondents having been appointed on an ad hoc basis or on any basis other than part-time or pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988. The High Court completely overlooked this aspect of the matter.22. The provisions of the Act also do not come to the rescue of the respondents. Section 16 and Section 31-C of the Act were placed before us for consideration. These provisions read as follows:“16. Appointment of ad hoc teachers.- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor.(2) xxx xxx xxx”“31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments. - (1) Any teacher, other than a principal who –(a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3,1984 but not later than November 22, 1991 on a post –(i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier, or(ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its falling vacant, permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; or(iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been continuously serving the College from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992;(b) was appointed on ad hoc basis under sub-section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in clause (a), whether or not the vacancy was notified by the Commission.(c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post or was given relaxation from such qualification under the provisions of the relevant Statutes in force on the date of such ad hoc appointment;(d) [* * *](e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2); may be given substantive appointment by the Management of the College, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (a).(2) The Selection Committee consisting, the following members namely –(i) a member of the Commission nominated by the Government who shall be the Chairman;(ii) an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Higher Education Department;(iii) the Director;shall consider the cases of every such ad hoc teacher and on being satisfied about his eligibility in view of the provisions of sub-section (1), and his work and conduct on the basis of his record, recommend his name to the Management of the College for appointment under sub-section (1).(3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx”23. A bare perusal of these provisions makes it quite clear that they deal with the procedure of ad hoc selection and regularization of those selected on an ad hoc basis. These provisions have absolutely no application to the appointment of part-time Lecturers or their regularization. In fact the statute does not at all provide for regularization of part-time Lecturers.24. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the respondents had worked beyond 30th April, 1990. It was only their submission that they had worked beyond April 1990 but nothing was placed on record to even give a suggestion that the respondents had worked beyond April 1990.25. Under these circumstances, the question of regularization of the respondents including the correctness of the order passed by the Secretary, U. P. Government on 26th February, 2001 simply did not arise. The respondents had absolutely no right in their favour and the only option available to the High Court was to have dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents and to have allowed the writ petition filed by the College and set aside the order dated 26th February, 2001 regularising the services of the respondents.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. A reading of the order dated 1st December, 2009 gives a clear indication that even as recently as 2009 the Director of Higher Education was of the view that the appointment of the respondents was only on abasis and not on an ad hoc basis. Since the respondents were not appointed on an ad hoc basis (even if they fulfilled the requirements of Sectionof the Act), they had no right to be regularized since they were not so appointed.In our opinion, the High Court erred in taking the view that it did. There is absolutely no doubt that the respondents had not applied for the post of ad hoc Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988. On the contrary, the respondents moved independent applications to the effect that they had come to know through reliable sources that the post of aLecturer was available. It is on the basis of these applications that the respondents were appointed on abasis for a fixed period by the College and on a fixed salary. There is absolutely no question of the respondents having been appointed on an ad hoc basis or on any basis other thanor pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988. The High Court completely overlooked this aspect of the matter.22. The provisions of the Act also do not come to the rescue of the respondents.A bare perusal of these provisions makes it quite clear that they deal with the procedure of ad hoc selection and regularization of those selected on an ad hoc basis. These provisions have absolutely no application to the appointment ofLecturers or their regularization. In fact the statute does not at all provide for regularization ofLecturers.24. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the respondents had worked beyond 30th April, 1990. It was only their submission that they had worked beyond April 1990 but nothing was placed on record to even give a suggestion that the respondents had worked beyond April 1990.25. Under these circumstances, the question of regularization of the respondents including the correctness of the order passed by the Secretary, U. P. Government on 26th February, 2001 simply did not arise. The respondents had absolutely no right in their favour and the only option available to the High Court was to have dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents and to have allowed the writ petition filed by the College and set aside the order dated 26th February, 2001 regularising the services of the respondents.