Case Background
In 1988, Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College advertised for ad hoc lecturers, with applications due by January 31, 1988. However, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra, and Dr. Bachau Prasad Pathak (the respondents) did not apply through this advertisement. Instead, they submitted letters between August 1988 and December 1989, seeking part-time lecturer positions. The college appointed them as part-time lecturers for three months on a fixed salary, which continued until April 1990.
After their appointments ended, the respondents filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court in 1991. They claimed they were ad hoc lecturers and should receive appropriate salaries. The college argued they were only part-time lecturers and had not worked since May 1990.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 12, 1988 | Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College advertises for ad hoc lecturers. |
| January 31, 1988 | Last date for application for ad hoc lecturers. |
| August 1988 – December 1989 | Respondents submit letters seeking part-time lecturer positions. |
| 1988-1990 | Respondents appointed as part-time lecturers for a fixed period. |
| April 1990 | Respondents’ part-time appointments end. |
| 1991 | Respondents file a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. |
| August 21, 1995 | Allahabad High Court disposes of the writ petition. |
| August 6, 1996 | Director of Higher Education passes an order. |
| September 8, 1997 | Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, passes an order. |
| November 12, 1998 | High Court disposes of writ petitions. |
| April 16, 2003 | Supreme Court disposes of Civil Appeals. |
| February 26, 2001 | Secretary, U.P. Government passes an order regularizing services. |
| November 1, 2004 | High Court remands the matter relating to regularization. |
| December 5, 2017 | Supreme Court delivers final judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court initially ruled that the respondents were entitled to ad hoc pay scales, mistakenly believing their appointments were based on the 1988 advertisement. The High Court directed the Directorate of Higher Education to investigate and ensure the payment of outstanding salaries. The Director of Higher Education, however, held that the respondents were part-time lecturers and not eligible for regularization.
A Special Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Government later ordered that the respondents should be considered ad hoc lecturers. Consequently, the college filed a writ petition challenging this order. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition filed by the college. The college then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Special Secretary and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
Subsequently, the Secretary of the U.P. Government again ordered the regularization of the respondents. The High Court then remanded the matter to the Director of Education to consider Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (the Act).
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Section 16 and Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. Section 16 discusses the appointment of ad hoc teachers when the Commission fails to recommend candidates within three months of a vacancy notification.
Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, outlines the regularization of ad hoc appointments. It states that a teacher appointed on an ad hoc basis between January 3, 1984, and November 22, 1991, may be regularized if they meet certain conditions. These conditions include the post being either newly created or previously filled and subsequently vacant, and the teacher possessing the necessary qualifications and being found suitable by a selection committee.
The court quoted Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 as:
“16. Appointment of ad hoc teachers. – (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub -section (2) of Section 12, and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub -section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor.”
The court also quoted Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 as:
“31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments. – (1) Any teacher, other than a principal who – (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3,1984 but not later than November 22, 1991 on a post – (i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier, or (ii) which after its due creation was filled earlie r and after its falling vacant, permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; or (iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been continuously serving the College from the d ate of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992; (b) was appointed on ad hoc basis under sub -section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in clause (a), whether or not the vacancy was notified by the Commission. (c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post or was given relaxation from such qualification under the provisions of the relevant Statutes in force on the date of such ad hoc appointment; (d) [* * *] (e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted under sub -section (2); may be given substantive appointment by the Management of the College, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (a) .”
Arguments
The respondents argued they were entitled to ad hoc lecturer status and pay scales because they had worked for the college. They contended that the college had initially advertised for ad hoc lecturers, and their subsequent appointments should be considered as such. They also argued that they had continued to work beyond April 1990, despite the college’s claims to the contrary.
The college argued that the respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers for a fixed period and on a fixed salary. The college stated that the respondents had not applied in response to the advertisement for ad hoc lecturers. They also contended that the respondents had not worked beyond April 1990, and therefore, there was no basis for their claim to regularization.
The college further argued that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, did not apply to part-time lecturers. They emphasized that the Act only provided for the regularization of ad hoc appointees, not part-time ones.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Respondents’ Claim for Ad Hoc Status |
|
| College’s Argument Against Ad Hoc Status |
|
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the respondents’ attempt to equate their part-time appointments with ad hoc appointments, despite not applying for the latter.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra, and Dr. Bachau Prasad Pathak were appointed as ad hoc Lecturers with the Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondents were appointed as ad hoc Lecturers. | No. | The respondents applied for part-time positions, not ad hoc positions, and were appointed as part-time lecturers for a fixed period. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980: This section deals with the appointment of ad hoc teachers when the Commission fails to recommend suitable candidates within three months.
- Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980: This section provides for the regularization of ad hoc appointments made between January 3, 1984, and November 22, 1991.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 | The court noted that this section deals with ad hoc appointments, which were not applicable to the respondents’ situation. |
| Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 | The court held that this section was not applicable as it pertains to the regularization of ad hoc teachers, not part-time lecturers. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Respondents were entitled to ad hoc lecturer status and pay scales. | Rejected. The court found that the respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers and had not applied for ad hoc positions. |
| Respondents had continued to work beyond April 1990. | Rejected. The court found no evidence to support this claim. |
| College’s argument that respondents were part-time lecturers. | Accepted. The court agreed that the respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers for a fixed period. |
| College’s argument that the Act does not apply to part-time lecturers. | Accepted. The court agreed that the Act only provided for the regularization of ad hoc appointees. |
The Supreme Court held that the respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers, not ad hoc lecturers. The court emphasized that the respondents had not applied for ad hoc positions and were appointed for a fixed period on a fixed salary.
The court stated that:
“There is absolutely no question of the respondents having been appointed on an ad hoc basis or on any basis other than part -time or pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988.”
The court also found that the provisions of the Act did not apply to part-time lecturers. The court noted that the statute does not provide for the regularization of part-time lecturers.
The court further stated that:
“A bare perusal of these provisions makes it quite clear that they deal with the procedure of ad hoc selection and regularization of those selected on an ad hoc basis. These provisions have absolutely no application to the appointment of part-time Lecturers or their regularization.”
The court also found no evidence that the respondents had worked beyond April 1990.
The court stated that:
“There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the respondents had worked beyond 30th April, 1990. It was only their submission that they had worked beyond April 1990 but nothing was placed on record to even give a suggestion that the respondents had worked beyond April 1990.”
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 | The court held that this section was not applicable as it pertains to ad hoc appointments, not part-time appointments. |
| Section 31-C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 | The court held that this section was not applicable as it pertains to the regularization of ad hoc teachers, not part-time lecturers. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondents were clearly appointed as part-time lecturers and not ad hoc lecturers. The court emphasized that the respondents had not applied for ad hoc positions and their appointment letters specified a fixed term and salary. The absence of any evidence that the respondents worked beyond April 1990 also weighed heavily in the court’s decision.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Respondents’ Appointment as Part-Time Lecturers | 40% |
| Respondents’ Failure to Apply for Ad Hoc Positions | 30% |
| Lack of Evidence of Work Beyond April 1990 | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the specific provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. The court did not find any basis to equate part-time appointments with ad hoc appointments.
Logical Reasoning
Respondents applied for part-time lecturer positions, not ad hoc positions.
Respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers for a fixed period and salary.
Section 16 and Section 31-C of the Act deal with ad hoc appointments, not part-time appointments.
No evidence that respondents worked beyond April 1990.
Respondents are not entitled to ad hoc status or regularization.
Key Takeaways
- Part-time appointments cannot be equated with ad hoc appointments, even if the work is similar.
- The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, does not provide for the regularization of part-time lecturers.
- Educational institutions must clearly distinguish between ad hoc and part-time appointments.
- Employees must apply for the specific positions advertised to be considered for that position.
- Claims for regularization must be supported by proper documentation and evidence.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The court simply set aside the impugned order of the High Court and held that the respondents were not entitled to regularization.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that part-time lecturers cannot be considered ad hoc lecturers for the purposes of regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. This judgment clarifies the distinction between these two types of appointments and reinforces that regularization can only be granted to those who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were appointed as part-time lecturers, not ad hoc lecturers, and were not entitled to regularization. The court emphasized that the respondents did not apply for ad hoc positions and that the relevant Act does not provide for the regularization of part-time lecturers. This judgment clarifies the distinction between ad hoc and part-time appointments in educational institutions.