http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/07/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the judgment and order  dated March 27, 1996 made by Allahabad High Court in Special  Appeal No.258  of 1996.  The petitioners came to join  as  L.T.  Grade  teachers  in  S.S.V.  Inter  College, Ghaziabad. It  is claimed  that 16 substantive vacancies had arisen in  the said  college and  the intimation thereof was claimed to  have been issued to the U.P. Secondary Education Services   Commission   at   Allahabad   [for   short,   the "Commission"]. But  before recommendation came to be made by the   Commission    for   appointment   of   the   teachers, advertisement notifying  the said  16 vacancies  appears  to have been  issued in  two newspapers  on June 28 and July 3, 1991 and  interviews are  claimed to  have been conducted by the Management of the said college on July  12, 1991 and the petitioners were  allowed as  stated   above, to     join as teachers on  July 15  and 16,  1991 When papers were sent on November 2, 1931 to District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad for according  financial sanction  to make  payment of their salaries, he  made certain  queries regarding  vacancies and the  procedure  adopted  in  making  their  appointments  by proceedings  dated  December  19,  1991.  Thereon  the  writ petition bearing No.20128 of 1992 was filed and is stated to have been allowed by the High Court. Thereon, since salaries were not  paid, they  filed another  writ  petition  bearing No.26646 of  1992. In  the meanwhile,  an appeal  same to be filed against  the order  in the  first writ  petition.  The Division Bench  dismissed the  appeal but  on appeal arising out of  the special  Leave Petition  No.12338 of  1994, this Court on August 8, 1994 set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the  matter to  ascertain whether appointments  had beer made  properly and  in accordance with law. The learned single Judge  in an  elaborate judgment  dated February  27, 1996 held  that the  Management claimed to have selected the petitioners and  made them  to join duty without issuing any letters of  appointment before  expiry of two months’ period required under Section 16 and the appointments were not made in accordance with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Services Commission and  Selection Board  Act, 1982  [5 of 1982] [for short, the  "Act" read  with First  Uttar Pradesh  Secondary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Education Services Commission and Selection Board Removal of Difficulties  Order,   1381  [for  short,  the  "First  1981 Order"]. The  learned single  Judge held  that the selection and appointment  of the  petitioners, therefore, were not in accordance with law. On appeal the Division Bench upheld the same. Thus this special leave petition.      Shri P.P.  Rao, learned  senior counsel, contended that the  U.P.   Secondary  Education   Services  Commission  and Selection Board Ordinance, 1981 [Ordinance No.8 of 1981] was enacted to constitute Selection Committees and Board to male available teacher  recruited by  the Commission or the Board for appointment  in  Government  aided  private  educational institutions. prior  to the Act, appointment to the posts of teachers and  principals in  those institutions  used to  be made by  the  Management  such  institution  in  the  manner envisaged under  the U.P,  Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Since the  Commission could  not start  functioning prior to November 1,  1983 the Government had issued First 1981 Order which into  force w.e.f.  July 31,  1981 for  making ad  hoc appointments to  substantive vacancies and Second Removal of Difficulties  Order,  1981  which  came  into  force  w.e.f. September 11,  1981 to  fill up  short-term vacancies as per the procedure  prescribed thereunder.  After the  Commission started functioning  from November  1, 1983,  the First 1981 Order outlived  its purpose.  The U.P.  Secondary  Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1981 was further amended by  the Act which came into force with retrospective effect from  July 14,  1981.  Section  16  of  Act  provides procedure for  recruitment of the teachers by the Commission and   allotment    of   the   selected   teachers   to   the institutions/colleges as per the requisition. On its failure to allot  the teachers, Section 18 cames into play and gives power appointment  of ad hoc teachers in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder. The removal of difficulties is only  transient and  is effective  during its operational efficacy since the Commission did not function prior to from November 1,  1983. The  first 1981  Order and  the procedure prescribed thereunder  for selection  and appointment  of ad hoc teachers would no longer be available. The Full Bench of the Allahabad  High  Court  in  Radha  Raizada  &  Ors.  Vs. Committee of  Management, Vidyawati  Darbari Girls College & Ors     [1994  (3)   U.P.L.B.E.C.  1551]  had  not  properly considered  the   effect  of   the  First  1981  Order.  The appointments of the petitioners, therefore, were not validly made in  accordance  with  the  procedure  prescribed  under Section 18 of the 1981 Act. The learned single Judge and the Division  Bench,   therefore,  were   not  right   in  their conclusion that the appointments of the petitioners were not valid in law. We find no force in the contention.      It is  true that  Section  16  of  the  Act  prescribes procedure for appointment of teachers by the Commission. The said section reads as under:      "16. Appointments  to be  made only      on    recommendations     of    the      Commission   or    the    Board.(1)      Notwithstanding  anything   to  the      contrary    contained     in    the      Intermediate Education Act, 1521 or      the Regulations made thereunder but      subject   to   the   provision   of      Sections 18 and 33      (a) every  appointment of a teacher           specified  in   the   Schedule           shall, on  or after  July  10,           1981,   be    made   by    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

         management   only    on    the           recommendation     of      the           Commission;      (b) every  appointment of a teacher           (other    than    a    teacher           specified  in   the  Schedule)           shall, on  or after  July  10,           1981 be made by the management           only on the  recommendation of           the Board:           Provided that  in  respect  of      retrenched      employees,      the      provisions of  Section 16-EE of the      Intermediate Education  Act,  1921,      shall apply  with the  modification      that  in  sub-section  (2)  of  the      aforesaid  section,  for  the  word      ’six months’  the words  ’two years      shall  be   deemed  to   have  been      substituted.      (2) Every appointment of a teacher,      in contravention  of the provisions      of sub section (1), shall be void.      Section 18  of the  Act speaks  of  the  procedure  for appointment of ad hoc teachers and reads as under:      "18.Ad hoc  Teachers.-(i) Where the      management has  notified a  vacancy      to  the  Commission  in  accordance      with the  provisions  of  the  Act,      and-      (a) the  Commission has  failed  to           recommend  the   name  of  any           suitable   candidate for being           appointed   as    a    teacher           specified  in   the   Schedule           within one  year from the date           of such notification; or      (b) the  post of  such teacher  has           actually remained  vacant  for           more   than two  months,  then           the management may appoint, by           direct     recruitment      or           promotion, a teacher on purely           ad hoc  basis from amongst the           persons             possessing           qualifications      prescribed           under     the     Intermediate           Education  Act,  1921  or  the           regulations made thereunder.      (2) The  provisions of  sub-section      (1)  shall   also  apply   to   the      appointment  of  a  teacher  (other      than a  teacher  specified  in  the      Schedule) on  ad hoc basis with the      substitution  of   the   expression      ’Board’    for    the    expression      "Commission". (3)  Every  appointment  of  an  ad  hoc      teacher under  sub-section  (1)  or      subsection (2)  shall cease to have      effect from  the  earliest  of  the      following dates, namely      (a) when  the candidate recommended           by  the   Commission  or   the           Boards as  the  case  may  be,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

         joins the post;      (b) then  the period  of one  month           referred to in sub-section (4)           of Section expires;      (c) thirtieth day of June following           the  date   of  such   ad  hoc           appointment.      Section 33  of the Act empowers the State Government to issue by a notification order for removal of difficulties in implementation of,  and to  give effect to the Act by way of modifications addition  or omission,  as it  may  be  deemed necessary or  expedient In exercise of this power, the First 1981 Order  came to  be made. Para 5 of the First 1581 Order which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:      "5 -  Ad hoc  appointment by direct      recruitment.      (i) Where  any  vacancy  cannot  to           filled  by   promotion   under           paragraph 4,  the same  may be           filled by  direct  recruitment           in accordance with clauses (2)           to 5      (ii) The  Management shall  as soon           as may be, inform the District           Inspector of Schools about the           details of  the   vacancy  and           such  Inspector  shall  invite           applications  from  the  Local           Employment Exchange  and  also           through public  advertisements           in at least two newspapers.      (iii)Every application  referred to           in   clause   (2)   shall   be           addressed  to   the   District           Inspector of Schools and shall           be accompanied-           (a) by  a crossed postal order                worth ten  rupees payable                to such Inspector.           (b)  by   a   self   addressed                envelop  bearing   postal                stamp  for   purposes  of                registration.      (iv)  The   Distt.   Inspector   of           Schools shall  cause the  best           candidates  selected   on  the           basis   of    quality   points           specified  in   Appendix.  The           complication of quality points           may be  done  on  remunerative           basis  by   retired   Gazetted           Government servants  under the           personal supervision  of  such           Inspector.      (v) If more than one teacher or the           same subject or category is to           be recruited for more than one           institution,  the   names   cf           selected teachers and names of           the   institution   shall   be           arranged in Hindi alphabetical           order.  The   candidate  whose           name appears on the top of the           list shall  be allotted to the           institution the  name  whereof

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

         appears on the top of the list           of institution,  This  process           shall be  repeated  till  both           the lists are exhausted."      We are  not concerned  in this  case  with  the  Second Removal of  Difficulties Order  1981 which deal with filling up of  short-term vacancies  of  ad  hoc  teachers.  It  is, therefore,  not   necessary  to   deal  with  the  procedure prescribed in  that behalf.  The Full  Bench as  elaborately considered the  legislative history. In paragraphs 23 and 27 it had  dealt with  the amendments  to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and various provisions of Ordinance 8 of 1981. The  object was  to provide  teachers selected through the   Commission or  the Board  with a  view  to  raise  the standard of  education and in the event of there being delay in allotting  the selected  teachers, with view to allow the institution to  appoint teachers  on ad  hoc basis  so as to avoid hardship to the students. Procedure and Section 18 was provided  for   appointment  of   such   teachers   in   the institutions purely  on ad  hoc basis in accordance with the procedure prescribed  thereunder. The  method of recruitment and appointment  of such  teachers is regulated in para 5 of the First  1981 Order  The appointment, therefore, should be made in  accordance with the said procedure. In paragraph 41 of the  judgment, it  has expressly dealt with a appointment as under:      "41 It  has  already  been  noticed      that   Section 18  of the Principal      Act provides for power to appoint a      teacher  purely  on  ad  hoc  basis      either by  promotion or  by  direct      recruitment against the substantive      vacancy in the institution when the      condition precedent for exercise of      powers  exist   namely   that   the      Management has  notified  the  said      vacancy  to   the   Commission   in      accordance with  the provisions  of      the  Act  and  the  Commission  has      failed to recommend the name of any      suitable   candidate    for   being      appointed as  a teacher  within one      year  from   the   date   of   such      notification of  the post  of  such      teacher   has   actually   remained      vacant for  more than  two  months.      However, since the State Government      was alive to the situation that the      establishment of the Commission may      take long time and even after it is      established, it  may take long time      to   make  available  the  required      teacher in  the institution  and as      such   issue   three   Removal   of      Difficulties  Order  dated  30.1.82      and Removal  of Difficulties  Order      dated  14.4.1982.   In  fact  these      Removal of Difficulties Orders were      issued to  remove the  difficulties      coming in  the way  of a Management      in  running   the  institution   in      absence of  teachers. This power to      appoint ad  hoc teachers  by direct      recruitment thus, it available only      when  pre-conditions  mentioned  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    Section  187   of   the   Act   are      satisfied, secondly, the vacancy is      substantive  vacancy  and  thirdly,      the vacancy  could not be filled by      promotion. Neither  the Act nor the      Removal   of   Difficulties   order      defined   vacancy.   However,   the      vacancy has  been defined  in  Rule      2(11) of  U.P. Secondary  Education      Services  Commission   Rules  1983.      ’Vacancy’ means  ’a vacancy arising      out   as   a   result   of   death,      retirement,            resignation,      termination, dismissal, creation of      new post  or appointment prevention      of the incumbent to any higher post      in    substantive  capacity.  Thus,      both under  Section 18  of the  Act      and   under    the    Removal    of      Difficulties Order,  the Management      of an  institution is  empowered to      make ad  hoc appointment  by direct      recruitment,  in  the  manner  laid      down in  paragraph 5  of the  First      Removal of  Difficulties Order only      when such  vacancy cannot be filled      promotion and   for a period till a      candidate  duly   selected  by  the      Commission  joins   the  post.   As      noticed earlier both Section  18 of      the Act and the provisions of First      Removal   of   Difficulties   Order      provide for  ad hoc  appointment of      teacher   in the institution, later      further providing  for  method  and      manner  of  such  appointments  are      part of  the scheme.  Scheme  being      provision for ad hoc appointment of      teacher in  the   absence  of  duly      selected    teachers     by     the      Commission. The  provisions may  be      two but the power to appoint is one      and the  same and,  therefore,  the      provisions contained  in Section 18      and Removal  of Difficulties  Order      are  to   harmonized.      It   is,      therefore, not  correct to say that      appointment of  a teacher on ad hoc      basis is either under Section 18 of      the   Act or  under the  Removal of      Difficulties   Order.    Thus,   if      contingency  arises   for  ad   hoc      appointment of  teacher  by  direct      recruitment the  procedure provided      under   the    first   Removal   of      Difficulties  Order   has   to   be      followed. Paragraph  5 of the First      Removal   of   Difficulties   Order      provides that the management shall,      as  soon  as  may  be,  inform  the      District     Inspector  of  Schools      about the  details of  vacancy  and      the District  Inspector of  Schools      shall invite applications from  the      local Employment  Exchange and also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    through public  advertisement in at      least   two    newspapers    having      adequate     circulation  in  Uttar      Pradesh.  Sub   paragraph  (3)   of      paragraph 5  further provides  that      every  such  application  shall  be      addressed to the District Inspector      of Schools.  Sub paragraph  (4)  of      paragraph  5   of  the  Removal  of      Difficulties  Order  provides  that      the District  Inspector of  Schools      shall  cause   the  best  candidate      selected on  the basis  of  quality      point specified  in  Appendix.  The      complication of  quality point  may      be done  by the  Retired Government      Gazetted Officer,  in the  personal      supervision   of   the   Inspector.      Paragraph 6 of the First Removal of      Difficulties Order further provides      for  appointment  of  such  teacher      under paragraph 5 who shall possess      such  essential   qualification  as      laid down in Appendix A referred to      in the  Regulation 1  of Chapter II      of  the  Regulations  made  in  the      Intermediate Education Act.      42. In view of these provisions the      ad hoc  appointment of a teacher by      direct recruitment  can be resorted      to    only    when    the-condition      precedent  for   exercise  of  such      powers as stated in paragraph 18 of      the Act are present and only in the      manner provided  in paragraph  5 of      the Removal of Difficulties Order."      ".......Thus, both under Section 18      of the Act and under the Removal of      Difficulties Order  the  Management      of an  institution is  empowered to      make ad  hoc appointment  by direct      recruitment,  in  the  manner  laid      down in  paragraph 5  of the  First      Removal of  Difficulties Order only      when such  vacancy cannot be filled      by promotion  and for a period till      a candidate  duly selected  by  the      Commission, joins  the  post.  Both      Section  18  of  the  Act  and  the      provisions  of   First  Removal  of      Difficulties Order  provide for  ad      hoc appointment  of teacher  in the      institution,     later      further      providing for  method and manner of      such appointments  are part  of one      scheme. Scheme  being provision for      ad hoc  appointments of  teacher in      the  absence   of   duly   selected      teachers  by  the  Commission.  The      provisions may be two but the power      to appoint is one and the same and,      therefore, the provisions contained      in  Section   18  and   Removal  of      Difficulties    Order     are    to      harmonised. It  is  therefore,  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    correct to  say that appointment of      a teacher on ad hoc basis is either      under Section  18  of  the  Act  or      under   the    First   Removal   of      Difficulties   Order.    Thus    if      contingency  arises   for  ad   hoc      appointment of  teacher  by  direct      recruitment the  procedure provided      under   the    First   Removal   of      Difficulties  Order   has   to   be      followed."      It would  thus be  clear that any ad hoc appointment of the teachers  under Section  18 shall  be only  transient in nature. pending  allotment of  the teachers  selected by the Commission and  recommended for  appointment,  Such  ad  hoc appointments should  also be  made in  accordance  with  the procedure prescribed in para 5 of the First 1981 Order which was later  streamlined in  the amended Section 18 of the Act with which  we are  not presently concerned. Any appointment made in  transgression thereof is illegal appointment and is void and  confers no right on the appointees. The removal of difficulties envisaged  under Section  33 was  effective not only  during   the  period   when  the  Commission  was  not constituted but  also even  thereafter as  is  evident  from second paragraph  or the  preamble to  the First  1981 Order which reads as under:      "And whereas  the establishment  of      the Commission  and  the  Selection      Boards as  likely to take some time      and even  after   the establishment      of the  said Commission and Boards,      it  is   not   possible   to   make      selection of  the teachers  for the      first few months."      In Re  The Delhi  Laws Act.  1912, The  Ajmer-  Merwara [Extension of  Laws ] Act, 1947 and The Para C States [Laws] Act, 1950  [ 1951  SCR 747  at 846 ] this had dealt with the power of modification and held thus:      "I will  now deal with the power of      modification which  depends on  the      meaning of  the  words  "with  such      modifications as  it  thinks  fit".      These are  not unfamiliar words and      they  are  often  used  by  careful      draftsmen to  enable laws which are      applicable to  one place  or object      to be  so adapted  as to  apply  to      another. The  power of  introducing      necessary     restrictions      and      modifications is  incidental to the      power to  apply or  adapt the  law,      and in  the context  in  which  the      provision as to modification occurs      it cannot  bear the  sinister sense      attributed to it. The modifications      are to be made within the framework      of the  Act and they cannot be such      as  to   affect  its   identity  or      structure or  the essential purpose      to be  served by  it. The  power to      modify   certainly    involves    a      discretion   to    make    suitable      changes, but it would be useless to      give  an  authority  the  power  to      adapt a  law without  giving it the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    power to make suitable changes". At page 849, this Court had further held thus:           "Similar  instances   may   be      multiplied, but  the will  serve no      useful    purpose.     The     main      justification   for   a   provision      empowering  modifications   to   be      made, is  laid to  be that, but for      it, the  Bill would  take longer to      be  made   ready,   and   wholesome      measures would be delayed, and that      once the  Act become operative, any      defect in  its provisions cannot be      removed until  amending legislation      is passed.  It is  also pointed out      that the  power  to  modify  within      certain circumscribed  limits  does      not go  as far as many other powers      which are vested by the legislature      in high officials and public bodies      through whom  it decides  to act in      certain matters." In Mahadeva Upendra Sinai etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1975) 2 SCR 640 at 653 ] This Court had held thus:           "To keep pace with the rapidly      increasing  responsibilities  of  a      Welfare  turn  out  a  plethora  of      hurried legislation,  the volume of      which is  often matched.  with  its      complexity.  Under   conditions  of      extreme     pressure,  with   heavy      demands  on   the   time   of   the      legislature and  the endurance  and      skill of  the draftsman, if is well      high impossible  to force  all  the      circumstances to  deal with which a      statute is enacted or to anticipate      all  the  difficulties  that  might      arise  in   its  working   due   to      peculiar local conditions or even a      local  law.  This  is  particularly      true  when   Parliament  undertakes      legislation  which   gives  a   new      dimension     to      socioeconomic      activities of  the State or extends      the existing  Indian  laws  to  new      territories or areas freshly merged      in the  Union of India. In order to      adviate    the     necessity     of      approaching  the   legislature  for      removal    or    very    difficult,      howsoever  Trival,  encountered  in      the enforcement  of a  statute,  by      going  through  the  time-consuming      amendatory process, the legislature      sometimes thinks  it  expedient  to      invest the  Executive with  a  very      limited   power   to   make   minor      adaptations     and      peripheral      adjustments  in  the  statute,  for      making,   without    touching   its      substance."      These  principles  are  unexceptionable.  However,  the question is  whether they get attracted to the facts of this case. It  is seen  that when  intimation was  given  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

college to the Commission for allotment of the teachers, the Act envisaged  that within one year the recommendation would be made  by the  Commission for  appointment; but within two months from  the date  of the intimation if the allotment of the  selected   candidates  is   not  made  to  obviate  the difficulty of  the Management  in imparting education to the students, Section  18 gives  power to the Management to make ad  hoc   appointments.  Section   16  is   mandatory.   Any appointment in  violation thereof  is void. As seen prior to the Amendment  Act of  1982 the  First 1981 Order  envisages recruitment as  per  the  procedure  prescribed  in  para  5 thereof. It  is an  in-built procedure to avoid manipulation and nepotism in selection and appointment of the teachers by the Management  to any  posts in  aided institution.  It  is obvious that  when the  salary is  paid by  the State to the Government aided  private educational  institutions,  public interest demands  that the  teachers’ selection  must be  in accordance with  the procedure prescribed under the Act read with the  First  1981  Order.  Therefore,  the  Order  is  a permanent one  but not  transient as contended for. The Full Bench of  the High  Court  has  elaborately  considered  the effect of  the Order and for cogent and valid reasons it has held that  the Order will supplement the power to select and appoint ad  hoc teachers  as per  the  procedure  prescribed under Section  18 of the Act. The view taken by the Division Bench following  the Full  Bench decision, therefore, cannot be faulted  with. Accordingly,  we find  no merit in special leave petition.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.