http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: J.A.S. INTER COLLEGE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)292

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  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, 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 Ist  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.

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