http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RATTAN LAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1985

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  478            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 569  1985 SCC  (4)  43        1985 SCALE  (2)354  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC1286  (5)

ACT:      Constitution of  India 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - State Government -  Appointment of  ’ad hoc’  teachers in  regular vacancies - Validity and legality of.

HEADNOTE:      On the  question  whether  it  is  open  to  the  State Government to  appoint teachers  on an  ad-hoc basis  at the commencement  of   an  academic  year  and  terminate  their services  before   the  commencement   of  the  next  summer vacation, or  earlier, to  appoint them  again on  an ad-hoc basis at  the commencement  of next  academic  year  and  to terminate their  services before  the  commencement  of  the succeeding summer  vacation or earlier and to continue to do 80 year after year. ^      HELD: 1.  The policy  of "ad-hocism"  followed  by  the State Government  in the appointment of teachers for quite a long period  has led  to the breach of Articles 14 ant 16 of the Constitution.  Such a  situation cannot  be permitted to last  any  longer.  The  State  Government  is  expected  to function as a motel employer. [571 E]      In the instant case the State Government is directed to take immediate  steps to  fill up  in  accordance  with  the relevant  rules   the  vacancies  in  which  those  who  are appointed on  an at-hoc  basis are  now working ant to allow all those who are now holding these posts on an at-hoc basis to remain  in those posts till the vacancies are duly fillet up.  These   at-hoc  teachers   shall  be  paid  salary  ant allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they held office.  Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall  also be  granted such leave in accordance with the rules.[571 F, 572 A-B]      2. The  State Government has a duty to appoint teachers in existing  vacancies in  accordance with  the  rules.  The State Government  has  failed  to  discharge  that  duty.  A substantial number  of ad-hoc  appointments are  mate in the existing vacancies which have remained unfilled for three to four years.  In some  cases the  appointments are made for a period of six months only and they are renewed after a break

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of a few days. [571 A-Bl 570      The number  of teachers  in the State who are appointed on such  ad-hoc basis  is very large indeed. If the teachers had been  appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable  in respect  of that  period and  to  all other  privileges   such  as  casual  leave  medical  leave, maternity  leave   etc.  available  to  all  the  Government servants. These benefits are denied to these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably  on   account  of  this  pernicious  system  of appointment adopted by the State Government. [571 B-C]      3. These  teachers  who  constitute  the  bulk  of  the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad-hoc basis  with  miserable  conditions  of  service.  The Government appears  to be exploiting this situation. This is not a  sound personnel  policy. It  is bound to have serious repercussions  on   the  educational  Institutions  and  the children studying there. [571 D]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ Petitions Nos. 4600,4600A of 1985 etc.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      Rishi Kumar,  S.M. Ashri,  Naunit Lal,  Kailash Vasdev, Mrs. Vinod  Arya, R.C. Pathak, Vishnu Mathur, Mahabir Singh, Pankaj Kalra, Serva Mitter, R.P. Singh, K.C. Dua, N.D. Garg, S. Srinivasan,  Rathin Dass,  K.K.  Gupta,  S.K.  Bagga,  R. Ramachandran S.K.  Bisaria, Laxmi  Arvind,  K.P.  Gupta,  R. Bana, Ranbir  Singh Yadav, H.M. Singh, Mrs. S.C.Jindal, R.K. Agnihotri, B.S.  Gupta, P.C.  Kapur, Kripal  Singh and Amlan Ghosh for the Petitioners.      V.C. Mahajan, I.S. Goel, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENTAKARAMIAH, J.  In all  these petitions  the  common question which  arises for decision is whether it is open to the State  Government to appoint teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the  commencement of an academic year and terminate their services before  the commencement of the next s = r vacation or earlier  to appoint  them again on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of  next academic  year and  to terminate their services before  the commencement  of the  succeeding summer vacation or  earlier and  to continue  to do  so year  after year. A  substantial number  of such ad-hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies which have 571 remained unfilled for three to four years. It is the duty of the State  Government to  take steps  to appoint teachers in those vacancies  in accordance  with the  rules as  early as possible. The  State Government  of Haryana  has  failed  to discharge that  duty in  these cases. It has been appointing teachers for  quite some  time on  an ad-hoc basis for short periods as  stated above  without any justifiable reason. In some cases  the appointments  are made  for a  period of six months only  and they  are renewed  after a  break of  a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers  had been  appointed regularly  they would have been entitled  to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary  and allowance  payable in respect of that period and to  all other  privileges such  as casual leave, medical leave, maternity  leave etc. available to all the Government

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

servants. These benefits are denied to these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably  on   account  of  this  pernicious  system  of appointment adopted  by the  State Government.  These ad-hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary ’hiring and firing’  policy. These  teachers who constitute the bulk of the  educated unemployed  are compelled  to accept  these jobs  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  with  miserable  conditions  of service.  The  government  appears  to  be  exploiting  this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to   have   serious   repercussions   on   the   educational institutions and  the children studying there. The policy of ’ad-hocism’ followed  by the  State Government  for  a  long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.  Such a  situation cannot  be permitted to last any  longer. It  is needless  to  say  that  the  State Government is expected to function as a model employer.      We, therefore,  direct the  State  Government  to  take immediate steps  to fill  up in accordance with the relevant rules the  vacanies in  which those  who are appointed on an ad-hoc basis  are now working and to allow all those who are now holding  these posts  on ad-hoc basis to remain in those posts till  the vacancies  are duly  filled up. The teachers who are  now working  on such  ad-hoc basis if they have the prescribed qualification  may also apply for being appointed regularly in  those posts.  The State  Government  may  also consider  sympathetically   the  question  of  relaxing  the qualification of  maximum age  prescribed for appointment to those posts  in the  case of  those who have been victims of this  system   of  ’ad-hoc’  appointments.  If  any  of  the petitioners in  these petitions  has under any existing rule acquired the  right to  be treated  as a regularly appointed teacher,  his   case  shall   be  considered  by  the  State Government and  an appropriate  order may  be passed  in his case. 572      We  strongly   deprecate  the   policy  of   the  State Government under  which ’ad-hoc’  teachers  are  denied  the salary and  allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These  ’ad-hoc’ teachers  shall be  paid  salary  and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the  office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.      If the  petitioners have any other grievances, they may approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.      These petitions are accordingly disposed of. A.P.J.                                   Petition dismissed. 573