Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Science Teacher Despite Lack of Sanctioned Post: Suresh Mani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 26, 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 11331 of 2018 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5334 of 2018]
Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Hemant Gupta. The judgment was authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Can a school teacher be denied regularization solely due to the lack of a sanctioned post, even when the subject they teach is approved? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Mani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court addressed the issue of a science teacher who had been working since 1986 but was not regularized due to the absence of a sanctioned post, despite the school having approval for the science subject. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Hemant Gupta delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Suresh Mani, had been working as a Science Teacher in Respondent No. 5 School since 1986. While the school had approval for the subject of Science, there was no sanctioned post for a Science Teacher. Despite this, the appellant was considered for selection grade in 2003, as communicated by the District Inspector of School, Deoria, on September 25, 2003. The appellant sought regularization as a teacher, which was denied due to the lack of a sanctioned post.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The judgment does not explicitly detail the course of proceedings in lower courts. However, it can be inferred that the appellant’s claim for regularization was not successful, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the statutory requirement of a sanctioned post for a teacher. However, the specific statute or provision is not mentioned in the judgment. The Court notes the apparent contradiction between sanctioning a subject and not sanctioning a post for a teacher to teach that subject.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument:

• The appellant argued that despite the lack of a sanctioned post, the fact that the school had a sanctioned subject of Science and that he was considered for selection grade in 2003, indicated that he should be regularized.

Respondent’s Argument:

• The State argued that there was no sanctioned post for a Science Teacher, which is a statutory requirement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the appellant should be regularized as a Science Teacher despite the lack of a sanctioned post.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or books. The Court relies on the specific facts of the case and the principle that the sanction of a subject should logically imply the sanction of a teacher for that subject.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the school had a sanctioned subject of Science, which logically requires a teacher.
• The fact that the appellant was considered for selection grade in 2003, indicating that the school and the department recognized the need for a science teacher.
• The long service of the appellant since 1986.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court reasoned that while the absence of a sanctioned post is a statutory requirement, the peculiar facts of this case warrant the regularization of the appellant. The court stated, “We fail to understand that having sanctioned the subject in a school, how can the Department deny the sanction of a post of teacher. The very purpose of sanctioning a subject is to have said subject taught in the school, for which a teacher is obviously required.” The court also noted that, “the technical objection regarding sanction of post also fades into insignificance” due to the appellant’s consideration for selection grade. The court held that, “the appellant should be deemed to be appointed as a regular Science Teacher, in view of the proposal made in 2003 for selection in the grade.”

Key Takeaways

• A school having a sanctioned subject implies the need for a teacher for that subject.
• Consideration for selection grade can override technical objections regarding the lack of a sanctioned post.
• The Supreme Court can grant relief based on the peculiar facts of a case, even if there is a statutory requirement to the contrary.
• This judgment is specific to the facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall be deemed to be a duly appointed teacher for all purposes. All consequential benefits arising out of the judgment shall be disbursed to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in peculiar circumstances, the court can order regularization of a teacher even if there is no sanctioned post, particularly when the subject is sanctioned and the teacher was considered for selection grade. This judgment does not change the general position of law that a sanctioned post is required for regularization, but it provides an exception in specific cases with unique circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh Mani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh provides relief to a teacher who had been working since 1986 but was not regularized due to the lack of a sanctioned post. The Court, acknowledging the statutory requirement of a sanctioned post, made an exception based on the specific facts of the case, particularly the fact that the school had a sanctioned subject of Science and the teacher was considered for selection grade in 2003. The court ordered the regularization of the teacher, emphasizing that this judgment should not be treated as a precedent.