Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Teacher’s Service: C/M Kisan Inter College vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 04, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 991

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a teacher be denied regularization after years of continuous service due to initial appointment irregularities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case involving a dispute over the regularization of a teacher in an aided college in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether the teacher, despite not being initially appointed through the proper channels, was eligible for regularization due to his long and continuous service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case involves C/M Kisan Inter College, an aided college in Uttar Pradesh, and Shri Ram Mani Pandey (Respondent No. 5), an L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher. In 1984, a vacancy arose for an L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher (Maths) due to the promotion of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak. Respondent No. 5 was appointed to this position on December 31, 1984. However, his appointment was not approved because the college did not follow the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Consequently, the college stopped paying his salary in July 1985.

Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition in 1985, which led to a High Court order directing the college to pay his salary and allow him to continue until a regular teacher was appointed. Meanwhile, the college attempted to revert Shri Hari Prasad Pathak to his previous position, which was challenged by Respondent No. 5. The High Court dismissed this challenge, stating that Respondent No. 5 lacked the locus standi. Subsequently, in 1988, the college asked Respondent No. 5 to rejoin his post.

The dispute continued with multiple writ petitions filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak challenging the filling of the Lecturer (Civics) post. In 1995, both Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No. 5 filed a joint writ petition, which resulted in an interim order allowing both to continue in their respective posts until further orders. They were both paid salaries until 2008, when Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was regularized as Lecturer (Civics) retroactively from 1983. Following this, the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) ordered the payment of arrears to Respondent No. 5 from 1985. An enquiry was conducted, which found that Respondent No. 5 had been continuously working since 1985.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially disposed of Writ Petition No. 19691 of 1995, filed by Shri Hari Prasad Pathak and Respondent No. 5, by directing the Regional Level Committee to consider the regularization of Respondent No. 5. The Regional Level Committee accepted Respondent No. 5’s request for regularization. The College challenged this decision in Writ Petition No. 50312 of 2010. Simultaneously, the College suspended and later terminated Respondent No. 5, which led to further litigation. The Selection Board directed the reinstatement of Respondent No. 5, but the College did not comply.

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the College’s writ petition, setting aside the regularization order, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 5. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals filed by Respondent No. 5, thus reinstating his regularization. The College then filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. This Act governs the appointment and regularization of teachers in secondary educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh. The Act and the rules framed thereunder prescribe the procedure for the selection and appointment of teachers.

The judgment refers to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982, which provides for the regularization of service of teachers. The Court considered the fact that Respondent No. 5 had been working continuously for a period of 10 years between 1985 to 1995.

Arguments

The Appellant-College argued that Respondent No. 5 did not actually work as an L.T. Grade Teacher between 1984 and 1995 and therefore, was not eligible for regularization. The college contended that the initial appointment of Respondent No. 5 was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, and the rules framed thereunder.

Respondent No. 5 argued that he had been continuously working as an L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher since his appointment on 01.01.1985. He relied on the enquiry report by the DIOS, Basti which found that he had worked continuously from 01.01.1985, and the order of the Regional Level Committee, Basti, which accepted his request for regularization.

The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the claim of Respondent No. 5. The government’s counter-affidavit pointed out that the College itself had acknowledged in letters dated 29.07.1988 and 17.04.2009 that Respondent No. 5 had been in service since 1985.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the primary issue of whether Respondent No. 5 had worked between 1984 and 1995 to be eligible for regularization.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the enquiry report dated 06.05.2009 by the DIOS, Basti, which found that Respondent No. 5 had worked continuously from 01.01.1985. The Court also considered the letters dated 29.07.1988 and 17.04.2009 from the College, which acknowledged that Respondent No. 5 had been in service since 1985.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, stating that there was no error in the judgment. The Court emphasized that the enquiry report by the DIOS and the College’s own letters proved that Respondent No. 5 had worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. The Court held that the regularization of Respondent No. 5 was in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982.

The Court noted that the learned single Judge of the High Court had wrongly set aside the order of regularization without considering the impact of the order dated 31.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 196191 of 1995.

The Court stated, “The Appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the claim of Respondent No.5 that he had actually served in the School during the disputed period i.e. between 1984 and 1995.” The Court further added, “In view of the enquiry report dated 06.05.2009 and the endorsement of the Management in their letters dated 29.07.1988 and 17.04.2009, it is clear that Respondent No.5 had actually worked during 1985 to 1995 and he was eligible for being considered for regularization of his service as LT Grade Teacher.”

The Court concluded, “For the aforementioned reasons, we see no error committed by the High Court. The Appeal(s) are accordingly dismissed.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent evidence of Respondent No. 5’s continuous service between 1985 and 1995. The enquiry report from the DIOS, Basti, and the endorsements from the College itself were crucial in establishing this fact. The Court also considered the State government’s support for Respondent No. 5. The Court emphasized the need to consider the factual service rendered by Respondent No. 5, rather than focusing solely on the initial procedural irregularities.

Key Takeaways

• Continuous service can be a significant factor in regularization, even if the initial appointment was not strictly as per procedure.
• Enquiry reports and endorsements by the management can be crucial evidence in determining the eligibility for regularization.
• The state government’s stance can play a significant role in such cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but upheld the High Court’s order to regularize Respondent No. 5’s service with all consequential benefits.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the principle that continuous service, supported by evidence, can outweigh procedural irregularities in matters of regularization. The ratio decidendi of the case is that if a teacher has worked continuously for a long period, and the school management has acknowledged the service, the teacher is eligible for regularization.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the C/M Kisan Inter College, upholding the regularization of Respondent No. 5. The Court emphasized the importance of the enquiry report and the college’s own acknowledgments of Respondent No. 5’s service. This judgment underscores the principle that practical service and factual evidence can be more important than strict adherence to procedure in certain cases of regularization.