Ram Sakhi Devi Uttar Pradesh Pradhan Adhyapak Parishad Vs. U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission , State of U.P  INSC 319 (20 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
APPEAL NO.1825 OF 1986 O R D E R CA NO.472/86:
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court, made on November
6, 1985 in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.10982/85.
admitted facts are that the appellant was appointed as Headmistress of Junior
High School, Kamla Nehru Kanya Vidyalaya, Shiv Shankari Dham Pachewara Chunal Mirzapur
which was upgraded in July, 1982 as High School. The Managing Committee
advertised through newspaper under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
for selection of the candidates, obviously, under Section 16-E. The committee
had selected the appellant on December 17, 1983
and the appellant was sought to be ratified. Since the ratification was not
accorded by the District Inspector, the appellant had approached by the High
Court. The High Court relying upon its earlier decision in Jai Prakesh Sharma
vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [WP No.174/85] dismissed the writ petition.
this appeal by special leave.
the High Court may not be correct in following its judgment in dismissing the
writ petition, on facts we find that there is no substantial difference in the
admitted position is that the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Commission)
Act, 1982, had come into force with effect from July 14, 1981. Section 10 of the Act specifies the purpose of making
appointment to the posts of teachers specified in the Schedule. It postulates
For the purpose of making appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule,
the management shall notify the vacancy to the Commission in such manner and
through such officer or authority as may be prescribed.
The procedure of selection of candidates for appointment to the posts of such
teachers shall be such as may be prescribed:
that the Commission shall, with a view to inviting talented persons, give wide
publicity in the State to the vacancies notified under sub-section (1)."
It is, thus, clear that Section 10 envisages two steps, namely, every
institution is enjoined to notify to the Commission the vacancies through such
officer or authority as may be prescribed. The Service Commission, before
selection, will give wide publicity by inviting applications from all qualified
candidates so that talented candidates would apply for get selected to the post.
Though this Section has been amended by Amendment Act 12 of 1985, the same is
not relevant and has no application to this case. It reads as under:
anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or
the Regulations made thereunder but subject to the provisions of Sections 18,
21-B, 21-C. 21-D, 33 and 33-A on or after July 10, 1981, be made by the
management only on the recommendation of the Commission;
every appointment of a teacher specified in the Scheduled, shall, on or after
July 1, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the
Board." Thus, it could be seen that after coming into force of the said
Amendment Act, the power of the Management to constitute a Selection Committee
under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Act has been taken away. Instead
the selection has to be made only through the Commission under the Act and the
selected candidate shall be appointed on its recommendation and in no other
manner. The selection by the School under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is
counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance on Section 33-A of the
Regulation made under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Act to regularise
such ad hoc appointments. Undoubtedly, every teacher directly appointed before
the commencement of the Act, in other words, on ad hoc basis, against the
substantive vacancy may be regularised under Section 33-A; but it cannot be
used as a routine. It is mandatory for the management to notify to the
Commission and in case the Commission is unable to recommend the selected
candidates within a reasonable time, any candidate appointed on ad hoc basis
will be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity. The resourse to
Section 33-A should be made sparingly and not as a routine.
Section 33-A route is adopted as a routine, the entire process of Selection
contemplated under the Act would be given a decent burial and illegal
appointment would gain legitimacy. Under these circumstances, we do not think
that the counsel is right in contending that the appellant could be regularised
under Section 33-A of the Regulation.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.
appeal having become infructuous, is dismissed. No Costs.