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

PETITIONER: J.A.S. INTER COLLEGE KHURJA, U.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      It was  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. Secondary Education  Service Commission were appointed.  One of them  had not  jointed the  service.  Consequently, seven person out  of 18  have  taken  charge.    Resultantly,.  11 candidates were  not  recommended  for  appointment  by  the Commission.     The  petitioner-college   appears  to   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 and ad hoc teacher under  sub-sections (1)  and (2) shall cease to have effect from  the earliest  of the  dates mentioned  therein, namely,  (a)   when  the   candidates  recommended   by  the Commission or  Board, as the case may be, join the post: (b) when the  post of  one month  preferred to under sub-section (4) of Section 11 express; or (c) 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 1st Removal  of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, therefore, not according to  rules, would  remain operative until either of the  events   occur.    The  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.      The application is accordingly disposed of.