http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3075 of 2008

PETITIONER: SUYASH SHUKLA & ORS

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION,U.P.& ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2008

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3075 OF 2008                        (Arising out of S.L.P(CIVIL) NO. 884 OF 2004)

SUYASH SHUKLA & ORS.                                      ...APPELLANT (S)

                                         VERSUS

DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION,U.P.& ORS.                        ...RESPONDENT(S)

                                           WITH

             CIVIL APPEAL NO.3076 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO. 885 OF 2004               CIVIL APPEAL NO.3077 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO. 1749 OF 2004               CIVIL APPEAL NO.3078 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO. 4407 OF 2004               CIVIL APPEAL NO.3079 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO. 8550 OF 2004               CIVIL APPEAL NO.3080 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.12053 OF 2004               CIVIL APPEAL NO.3081 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.19027 OF 2004

                                         ORDER

          Permission to file SLP granted in SLP(C) No. 19027 of 2004.

          Delay condoned.

          Impleadment allowed.

          Leave granted.

          In these Appeals the main question which arises for determination is "whether in

the State of Uttar Pradesh teachers appointed on honorarium basis should be allowed to

continue even after selectees are made available, from time to time, duly selected by U.P.

Higher Education Services Commission."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

         By the impugned Order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44332 of

2003, High Court has passed an across the Board direction to the concerned Authorities to

dismiss all the teachers appointed on honorarium basis (even without notice to the affected

parties) in following terms:

          "We therefore direct the concerned authorities including Secretary and            Director of Higher Education and the U.P. Higher Education Services            Commission that they must see to it that Mandeya appointments i.e.            (honorarium basis) are not made any more and any appointment            already made are terminated forthwith. The posts of lecturer in the            Degree/P.G. Colleges should be filled strictly in accordance with the            provisions of the Act i.e. by selection through the U.P. Higher            Education Services Commission.

          The petition is dismissed with the above observations."

         Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that on principle there is no

dispute as it is stated on behalf of the appellants and other such Teachers that as and when

selectees are made available they have to go.

         The only dispute is whether service of the appellants - teachers herein is liable  to

be terminated on the ground that selectees in some cases are now available.

         Learned counsel appearing for the Management has submitted a Chart. According

to him the selectees in some cases are now available and to that extent services of the exis ting

teachers appointed on honorarium basis have to be terminated. Therefore, these matters are

now confined to working out the details.

         In the circumstances, we set aside the above quoted portion of the impugned

judgment and we restore Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44332 of 2003, in which the

Management will have to show whether how many selectees are not cleared by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Commission and against the number of posts to be filled in.

         The difficulty has arisen because the impugned order is passed in Civil

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44332 of 2003 in the case of Malvika Shekhar Vs. Director,

Higher Education, U.P. & Ors. whereunder the High Court vide sweeping direction has

directed the concerned authorities to see that appointment of all teachers on honorarium

basis should be immediately terminated. The said order which is quoted hereinabove is

passed even without hearing the affected parties. Therefore, to that extent alone, we set as ide

the above quoted part of the order and we direct the High Court to once again consider the

said Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44332 of 2003 in the light of the later

developments, namely, selection of certain candidates by U.P. Higher Education Service

Commission. It would be open to the affected parties to move an I.A. in the pending Writ

Petition No. 44332 of 2003 since the Management has prepared the Chart of number of

selectees to be fitted against some of the posts. If, however, the High Court is of the view

that every affected teacher should file separate Writ Petition, on the basis that they had n ot

done so earlier it may so direct accordingly.

         We make it clear that till the High Court decides the above matters, as directed

above, the present status quo will continue.

         Accordingly, to above extent, the said Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44332

of 2003 filed in the High Court stands restored to the file of the High Court for fresh disp osal

in accordance with law.

         Civil Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

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

                ....................J.                  [ S.H. KAPADIA ]

New Delhi,       ....................J April 28, 2008   [ B. SUDERSHAN REDDY ]