Inter College & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  INSC 765 (8 July 1996)
K. G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCALE (5)292
O R D
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.
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,
the candidates recommended by the Commission or Board, as the case may be, join
the post of one month preferred to under sub-section (4) of Section 11 express;
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.
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.
application is accordingly disposed of.