Supreme Court clarifies rules for ad-hoc teacher appointments in aided schools: Raman Singh Case (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 8, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 681

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can an ad-hoc teacher, appointed in a temporary leave vacancy, claim a permanent position when the original post-holder dies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving an ad-hoc lecturer in an aided school. The court clarified that an ad-hoc appointment does not automatically convert into a substantive one, even if a permanent vacancy arises. This judgment impacts the employment of teachers in aided institutions across India.

Case Background

Raman Singh, the appellant, was appointed as an ad-hoc Lecturer in English on August 11, 1993, by the Committee of Management of the third respondent school. This appointment was against a short-term vacancy created when the regular lecturer took three months’ leave. Unfortunately, the regularly appointed lecturer passed away on October 1, 1993, leading to the appellant’s continued service. On June 30, 1994, the school management sought to absorb the appellant into the substantive vacancy that arose due to the death of the original lecturer. The management requested the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) to approve the appointment on July 2, 1994, and again on March 18, 1996. However, no response was received. In April 1996, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking to have his ad-hoc appointment converted to a permanent one and for the release of his salary.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially issued an interim order on April 16, 1996, allowing the appellant to continue working and receive his salary until a regularly appointed candidate was available. On June 30, 1997, the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board appointed Nem Singh. However, Nem Singh did not join the post, and the appellant continued to work. The appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on October 9, 2013. The appellant then filed a Special Appeal against this dismissal. During the pendency of the Special Appeal, the High Court issued another interim order to protect the appellant’s employment and salary. On October 30, 2017, the Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal, stating that the appellant’s appointment was in a leave vacancy and that his appointment lacked the necessary approval from the competent authority. The High Court also directed that while the salary paid until the date of the judgment should not be recovered, the appellant would not be entitled to further payments.

Legal Framework

The High Court referenced the Second Removal of Difficulties Order 1981, which governs ad-hoc appointments in leave vacancies. The court also considered Section 18 of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, which outlines the procedure for regular appointments. The court noted that the appellant’s appointment did not follow the prescribed procedure and, therefore, could not be considered a substantive appointment.

The relevant legal provision is Section 18 of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, which was considered by the court.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the DIOS’s claim of disapproving his services via a letter dated July 14, 1994, was never presented before the Single Judge and was only introduced during the Special Appeal. The appellant further contended that he has been continuously serving since 1993, is the senior-most teacher, and the management has proposed him as an in-charge principal.

The respondents argued that the appellant’s ad-hoc appointment could not be converted into a substantive one upon the death of the original lecturer. They stated that the appointment was not made following the correct procedure, and cited the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Pramila Mishra v Deputy Director of Education 1997 (2) ESC 1284, ALL(FB), to support their claim that the ad-hoc appointment ended with the cessation of the short-term vacancy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:

• Whether the ad-hoc appointment of the appellant could be converted into a substantive appointment.
• Whether the appellant was entitled to continue in service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The court’s view on the authorities is as follows:

• The Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Pramila Mishra v Deputy Director of Education 1997 (2) ESC 1284, ALL(FB) was followed to conclude that the ad-hoc appointment ended with the cessation of the short-term vacancy.
• The court considered that the appointment was not in conformity with the procedure laid down in Section 18 of the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982.
• The court considered that the appointment was made under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order 1981, which was for a leave vacancy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that an ad-hoc appointment in a leave vacancy does not automatically convert into a substantive appointment upon the death of the regularly appointed candidate. The Court emphasized the importance of following the correct procedure for making regular appointments as per the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982. The court also considered the fact that the appellant’s appointment was made under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order 1981, which was specifically for a leave vacancy.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an ad-hoc appointment is temporary and cannot be converted into a substantive one without following the due process of law. The court noted that the appellant’s appointment was made in a leave vacancy and not against a substantive post. The court also considered the fact that the DIOS had rejected the application of the management to absorb the appellant to a substantive post.

The court’s decision was also influenced by the need to ensure that the educational institution was not disrupted. The court, therefore, allowed the appellant to continue on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate was selected.

The court quoted:

“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.”

“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.”

“The method adopted by the appellant and the management is unsustainable in law.”

Key Takeaways

• An ad-hoc appointment in a leave vacancy does not automatically convert into a substantive appointment upon the death of the regularly appointed candidate.
• Regular appointments must follow the prescribed legal procedures.
• Ad-hoc appointees can continue in service on a temporary basis to avoid disruption, but this does not grant them a right to a substantive post.

This judgment clarifies the position of ad-hoc teachers in aided schools and emphasizes the need to follow due process for regular appointments. It also highlights that interim orders cannot be used to circumvent the law. This decision may impact future cases involving ad-hoc appointments and the rights of such appointees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Necessary steps be taken to fill the post on a regular basis within four months.
• The appellant should be allowed to continue on an ad-hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate is selected.
• The appellant’s salary should be paid for the period he works until a regular candidate is appointed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an ad-hoc appointment in a leave vacancy does not automatically convert into a substantive appointment upon the death of the regularly appointed candidate. This judgment reinforces the principle that regular appointments must follow the prescribed legal procedures. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the existing legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Raman Singh case clarifies that ad-hoc appointments in leave vacancies cannot be automatically converted to substantive appointments. The court emphasized the need to follow due process for regular appointments and allowed the appellant to continue on an ad-hoc basis only until a regular appointment is made. This decision reinforces the importance of following legal procedures and ensures fairness in the appointment process within educational institutions.