Appointment – Adhoc appointment of Teacher – On the basis of leave vacancy – After the leave vacancy ceased to exist, ad hoc appointee absorbed in the substantive vacancy by school management – Writ petition seeking direction to State to release his salary treating his ad hoc appointment as an appointment on permanent basis – Dismissal of writ petition by Single Judge of High Court – Special appeal dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: The purported appointment of the ad hoc appointee to the substantive post was without approval of District Inspector of Schools – No procedure as required by law was followed in making the appointment to the substantive post – The appellant had continued in service by virtue of interim orders – Appellant had no right to claim conversion of his ad hoc appointment into a substantive appointment – It is directed that steps be taken to fill up the post on a regular basis – However, in the facts of the case, appellant is allowed to continue on the post on purely ad hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate is selected. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was appointed purely on an ad hoc basis in a leave vacancy which arose in the institution. On the death of the regularly appointed candidate, the leave vacancy ceased to exist. Once a substantive vacancy arose, it was required to be filled up in accordance with law. The appellant had no right or entitlement to claim that his appointment on an ad-hoc basis in a leave vacancy should be converted into a substantive appointment. [Para 14] [277-F-G]
2. The purported appointment of the appellant to a substantive post was without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). The DIOS had rejected the application of the management to absorb the appellant to a substantive post over
24 years ago on the ground that his appointment would be in violation of the applicable law. No procedure as required by law was followed in making the appointment. The appellant however instituted proceedings and has continued in service by virtue of the interim orders. The person who was appointed on the post in accordance with law in 1997, was allegedly prevented from joining his post. The method adopted by the appellant and the management is unsustainable in law. [Para 15] [278-A-D]
3. The ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the effect that necessary steps be taken to fill up the post on a regular basis as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months. In order to ensure that there should be no dislocation of work in the educational institution, the appellant, having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, should be allowed to continue purely on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate is selected. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India it is also directed that his salary should be paid over for the period for which he works until a regular candidate is appointed. [Para 16] [278-D-F] Pramila Mishra v Deputy Director of Education
1997 (2) ESC 1284 ALL (FB) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.