LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher appointed by the management of an educational institution without following the prescribed procedure is entitled to receive a salary from the state government.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Service Law
Case Name: Ravindra Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors.
Judgment Date: 6 November 2019
Date of the Judgment: 6 November 2019
Citation: [Not Available in the source]
Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Can an educational institution’s management bypass established procedures when appointing a teacher and still expect the state to pay their salary? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case where a teacher’s appointment was deemed irregular. The court examined whether the appointment was made following the due process as per the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 and related orders. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Case Background
The case revolves around Ravindra Singh, who was appointed as a teacher at Bilhaur Inter College. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, refused to approve his appointment and release his salary. The Inspector’s decision was based on the fact that the appointment was made during a government-imposed ban on recruitment and that the college management did not follow the proper procedure for filling the vacancy. Singh had been serving without pay since 1997. The District Inspector of Schools passed the speaking order on 16.02.2000, in pursuance of the High Court’s earlier direction dated 10.07.1998 in the Writ Petition (C) No.21713 of 1998.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Ravindra Singh appointed as a teacher at Bilhaur Inter College. |
| 10.07.1998 | High Court directs the District Inspector of Schools to decide on the matter in Writ Petition (C) No.21713 of 1998. |
| 16.02.2000 | District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, rejects Ravindra Singh’s representation for financial approval. |
| 12.04.2016 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses Writ Petition No.38790 of 2000 filed by Ravindra Singh. |
| 20.05.2016 | Division Bench of the High Court dismisses Special Appeal No. 345 of 2016 filed by Ravindra Singh. |
| 06.11.2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by Ravindra Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The District Inspector of Schools rejected Singh’s claim for financial approval on 16.02.2000, leading Singh to file Writ Petition No. 38790 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on 12.04.2016, upholding the District Inspector’s decision. Singh then filed Special Appeal No. 345 of 2016, which was also dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on 20.05.2016. The High Court found that the college management had not followed the procedure outlined in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, when appointing Singh. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily governed by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1982”). This Act established the framework for appointing teachers in government-aided private educational institutions. Section 16 of the Act, 1982, mandates that the Commission recruits teachers based on requisitions from the management. Section 18 of the Act, 1982, allows for ad hoc appointments as a temporary measure when the Commission cannot provide teachers.
To address the difficulties before the Commission started functioning, the government issued the First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, and the 2nd Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981. Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order outlines the procedure for filling vacancies by promotion and direct recruitment. The court also considered the Payment of Salaries Act, which gives the District Inspector of Schools the power to stop payment of salaries to teachers appointed without following due process.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant, represented by Mr. Manoj Prasad, argued that he had been serving without pay since 1997 and therefore should be granted financial approval for his service.
- It was contended that the High Court had misinterpreted the ratio in the case of Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., 1994 All.L.J. 1077.
- The appellant argued that the Management of the Institution was competent to make short-term ad hoc appointments in available vacancies. Since the appellant was appointed after selection and advertisement, his salary should have been approved by the authorities.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Mr. Harish Pandey, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the Management of the Institution had no authority to make appointments against substantive vacancies during the government-imposed ban period.
- The State Counsel referred to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Procedure (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, notified under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.5 of 1982, arguing that the Management should first try to fill substantive vacancies by promotion before resorting to direct recruitment.
- The State Counsel cited the decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 62, to emphasize that the Supreme Court had approved the High Court’s judgment in Radha Raizada. Therefore, the appellant’s claim for financial approval was not tenable, as he was unauthorizedly appointed against a substantive vacancy.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Entitlement to Salary |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: No Entitlement to Salary |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in its view that the Management of the Institution, did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order to make appointment against a substantive vacancy.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in its view that the Management of the Institution, did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order to make appointment against a substantive vacancy. | The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view, stating that the Management did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The Court noted that the appointment was not made in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Order, which requires that vacancies first be filled by promotion before resorting to direct recruitment. The Court also emphasized that the State should not be burdened with salary obligations for appointments not made by them and without following due process. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., 1994 All.L.J. 1077 | Allahabad High Court | Approved and applied | Procedure for ad hoc appointments and the powers of the Management. |
| Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 62 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Affirmed the High Court’s judgment in Radha Raizada. |
| The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 | Uttar Pradesh Legislature | Considered | Framework for appointment of teachers in aided institutions. |
| First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 | Uttar Pradesh Government | Considered | Procedure for filling vacancies by promotion and direct recruitment. |
| 2nd Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981 | Uttar Pradesh Government | Considered | Procedure for filling vacancies by promotion and direct recruitment. |
| Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 | Uttar Pradesh Legislature | Considered | Recruitment of teachers by the Commission. |
| Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 | Uttar Pradesh Legislature | Considered | Appointment of ad hoc teachers. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for salary based on service since 1997 | Rejected. The Court held that the appointment was not made following the prescribed procedure, and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to salary from the State. |
| Appellant’s argument that the High Court misconstrued Radha Raizada | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court correctly applied the ratio in Radha Raizada. |
| Appellant’s argument that the Management could make short-term ad hoc appointments | Rejected. The Court held that the Management did not follow the procedure under paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. |
| Respondent’s argument that the appointment was made during a government-imposed ban | Accepted. The Court noted the ban on appointments during the relevant period. |
| Respondent’s argument that the Management had no authority to make appointments against substantive vacancies. | Accepted. The Court held that the Management did not follow the prescribed procedure for filling substantive vacancies. |
| Respondent’s argument that the Management must first attempt to fill vacancies by promotion. | Accepted. The Court held that the Management should have first considered filling the vacancy by promotion before direct recruitment. |
| Respondent’s reliance on Prabhat Kumar Sharma approving Radha Raizada | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court had correctly applied the ratio in Radha Raizada, which was approved by the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors. [1994 All.L.J. 1077]* to determine the correct procedure for ad hoc appointments. The Court found that the High Court correctly applied the principles laid down in this case.
- The Court also noted that the judgment in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1996) 10 SCC 62]* had approved the ratio in Radha Raizada.
- The Court considered the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, particularly Section 16* and Section 18*, to understand the process for appointing teachers.
- The Court examined the First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, and the 2nd Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981, to determine the procedure for filling vacancies.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that appointments in educational institutions are made by following the prescribed legal procedures. The Court emphasized that public funds should not be used to pay salaries to individuals who were appointed without adhering to the due process. The Court also stressed the importance of the government’s ban on appointments during the relevant period. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The Management of the Institution failed to follow the procedure under paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, which requires that vacancies first be filled by promotion before resorting to direct recruitment.
- The State should not be burdened with salary obligations for appointments not made by them and without following due process.
- The decision in Radha Raizada, as approved by the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma, was correctly applied to the present facts.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Procedure | 40% |
| Financial Responsibility of the State | 30% |
| Correct Application of Precedent | 20% |
| Government Ban on Appointments | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than by the factual aspects of the case (30%). The Court focused on the correct interpretation and application of the relevant statutes and orders.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had rejected the appellant’s claim for financial approval of his service. The Court found that the Management of the Institution had not followed the procedure prescribed under paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order when appointing the appellant. The Court emphasized that the State’s funds should not be used to pay salaries for appointments made without following the due process. The Court also noted that the State had imposed a ban on appointments during the relevant period. Therefore, the appellant could not enforce a claim for salary against the State. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were asked to bear their respective costs.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The State coffer should not according to us, be burdened with salary obligation for an appointment, not made by them.”
- “The decision repudiating the salary claim for the appellant is also found to be in order since the Management failed to adhere to the due process in filling up the substantive vacancy.”
- “Therefore, the appellant cannot enforce a claim for salary against the State.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench.
Key Takeaways
- Educational institutions must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures when making appointments.
- State governments are not obligated to pay salaries for appointments made in violation of established rules and procedures.
- Management of educational institutions must first consider filling vacancies by promotion before resorting to direct recruitment.
- Government-imposed bans on recruitment must be strictly followed.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the legal position established in Radha Raizada and Prabhat Kumar Sharma. The ratio decidendi of the case is that appointments made by the management of educational institutions without adhering to the prescribed procedure are invalid, and the State is not liable to pay salaries for such appointments. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing legal framework for appointments in aided educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravindra Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools upholds the principle that appointments in educational institutions must be made by following the prescribed legal procedures. The court ruled that the state is not obligated to pay salaries for appointments made in violation of these procedures. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations governing educational institutions and emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in the appointment process.