Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher with Unrecognized Degree: Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2008

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2006

Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

Can a teacher’s appointment be considered valid if they obtained their B.Ed. degree from a university not recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC)? This was the central question before the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission. The Supreme Court examined the legality of appointing a teacher whose degree was from an unrecognized institution, emphasizing the necessity of proper qualifications under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.

Case Background

Pramod Kumar, the appellant, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade at Shri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli (Meerut) on November 29, 1988. His appointment was on an ad-hoc basis, pending the arrival of a regularly selected candidate. However, it was later discovered that his B.Ed. degree was from Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Darbhanga, Bihar, an institution not recognized under the UGC Act.

Despite this, the college management allowed him time to obtain a B.Ed. degree from a recognized university. He subsequently obtained a degree from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (Haryana). However, the validity of this degree, particularly whether the correspondence course was recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh, remained uncertain.

Due to issues with his salary, Pramod Kumar filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which directed the respondents to pay his arrears. Later, he faced a show-cause notice and a departmental proceeding, leading to his termination on February 12, 1997, based on the premise that his initial appointment was secured with a fabricated and illegal B.Ed. degree.

Timeline:

Date	Event
November 29, 1988	Pramod Kumar appointed as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade at Shri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli (Meerut).
1988	Pramod Kumar was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade at Shri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli (Meerut)
November 20, 1988	Teacher’s selection committee of the college appointed Pramod Kumar in short term vacancy as ad-hoc assistant teacher in C.T. Grade on the basis of interview.
January 1, 1991	Pramod Kumar started getting his salary.
February 18, 1993	Pramod Kumar was directed to acquire B.Ed. degree from a recognized University.
July 5, 1996	The High Court directed the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 1.12.1988 to 31.12.1990.
January 11, 1987	A notice to show cause was served upon Pramod Kumar on the premise charge that he had obtained his appointment on the basis of a fabricated and illegal B.Ed. degree.
January 16, 1997	Pramod Kumar showed cause.
February 12, 1997	Pramod Kumar’s services were terminated.
March 9, 1997	A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Pramod Kumar.
1997	Services of the appellant had been terminated.
1998	Cut off date having been fixed on 1998, the said act, in our opinion, is not applicable.
March 7, 2008	Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Pramod Kumar filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1338 of 1989 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad due to non-payment of salary. The High Court directed the payment of arrears from December 1, 1988, to December 31, 1990. Subsequently, after a show cause notice and a departmental proceeding, his services were terminated on February 12, 1997. A single judge of the High Court dismissed his writ petition against the termination on March 9, 1997, stating that his appointment was invalid from the start due to the unrecognized B.Ed. degree.

A Special Appeal against this judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench, which upheld the single judge’s decision. The Division Bench stated that the initial appointment was illegal and void, and subsequent acquisition of another B.Ed. degree did not validate it. This led to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation and application of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder, specifically the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1993 (the Rules). Section 16 of the Act mandates that appointments of teachers be based on the recommendations of the Board.

Section 16 of the Act states:

“16. Appointments to be made only on the recommendations of the Board – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder but subject to the provisions of Sections 12, 18, 21-B, 21-C, 21-D, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D, 33-E and 33-F, every appointment of a teacher, shall on or after the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2001 be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board”

Rule 3 of the Rules specifies the minimum academic qualifications for teacher appointments, referring to Regulation 1 under Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:

“3. Qualifications and experience, etc. for appointment as teacher. – (1) The minimum academic qualification for appointment as teacher shall be as given in Regulation 1 under Chapter II of the Regulations, framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.”

These provisions, read with the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, establish that possessing a graduate degree from a University recognized under the UGC Act or any other State Act is essential for appointment as a teacher.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Pramod Kumar):

✓ The appellant argued that he did not conceal any material fact, and the management was aware that his degree was not from a recognized university. Therefore, it was not a case of fraud.
✓ The appellant contended that since the management allowed him to obtain a fresh degree, which he subsequently did, his services should have been continued.
✓ The appellant claimed that the departmental proceeding was initiated with mala fide intentions, particularly after a change in management and the institution of a contempt petition against the management.
✓ Given that the appellant served the institution for more than nine years from 1988, the High Court should have allowed the writ application.

Respondents’ Arguments (U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors.):

✓ The respondents argued that the appellant’s appointment was illegal because he did not possess a valid degree from a University recognized by the University Grants Commission.
✓ The respondents emphasized that Rule 3 of the 1993 Rules mandates a degree from a recognized university as a prerequisite for appointment, and a subsequent acquisition would not validate the initial illegal appointment.
✓ The respondents asserted that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions precedent for regularization of his services under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982, and thus, the High Court rightly rejected his prayer.

Submissions Table:

Main Submission	Appellant’s Sub-Arguments	Respondents’ Sub-Arguments
Validity of Initial Appointment	✓ No concealment of facts; ✓ Management was aware of the unrecognized degree.	✓ Lack of valid degree from a UGC-recognized university; ✓ Rule 3 of 1993 Rules mandates recognized degree.
Relevance of Subsequent Degree	✓ Management permitted obtaining a fresh degree; ✓ Services should have been continued after obtaining degree.	✓ Subsequent acquisition does not validate initial illegal appointment.
Procedural Fairness	✓ Mala fide intention behind departmental proceeding; ✓ Initiated after change in management and contempt petition.	✓ Non-fulfillment of conditions for regularization under the Act.
Length of Service	✓ Served the institution for more than nine years; ✓ High Court should have allowed the writ application.	N/A

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the services of the appellant can be said to have been illegally terminated or not.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It	Brief Reasons
Whether the services of the appellant can be said to have been illegally terminated or not.	The Court held that the termination was legal.	The appellant’s initial appointment was illegal due to the lack of a valid degree from a recognized university, as required by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 and related rules.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:

✓ Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]: Cited to emphasize that an appointment contrary to statute/statutory rules would be void in law and an illegality cannot be regularized.
✓ National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Somvir Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 493]: Cited to support the principle that an illegality cannot be regularized, especially when the statute explicitly states so.
✓ Post Master General, Kolkata and Ors. Vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5 SCC 317]: Cited to reinforce the view that appointments made contrary to statutory rules are void and cannot be regularized.
✓ Ram Bhagat Sharma and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others [1997 (4) RSJ 134]: A decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which the Supreme Court did not fully endorse, regarding the prevention of future recruitment of persons possessing qualifications awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.
✓ Shainda Hasan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 48]: Distinguished as a case where a concession was made by the State, and the issue was about relaxation of experience requirements, not basic educational qualifications.
✓ Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another Vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others [(1993) 3 SCC 591]: Distinguished as a case where a writ of quo warranto was sought, but the Court did not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as public interest would not suffer.
✓ Santosh Yadav (Smt.) Vs. State of Haryana and Others [(1996) 9 SCC 320]: Distinguished as a case where relaxation was granted by the State, and the appellant had already been regularized in service.
✓ Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 138]: A three-judge bench decision holding that if an appointment is against regulations, no question of estoppel arises. The Supreme Court agreed with this view.
✓ Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Others [JT 2006 (1) SC 331]: Cited to support the principle that qualifications should be assessed on the date of recruitment, not at a later stage, unless rules permit it.
✓ Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54]: Cited to emphasize that a candidate must hold the requisite qualification as of the cut-off date to be eligible.
✓ Radha Raizada Vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls’ College [1994 All. L.J. 1077]: A Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, approved by the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others [(1996) 10 SCC 62], regarding the applicability of Removal of Difficulties Orders.
✓ Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982
✓ Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1993

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission	How the Court Treated It
Appellant did not conceal any material fact, and the management was aware of the unrecognized degree.	The Court found that even if the management was aware, the initial appointment was still illegal due to the lack of a recognized degree, which is a statutory requirement.
Since the management allowed him to obtain a fresh degree, his services should have been continued.	The Court held that the subsequent acquisition of a degree does not validate an initial illegal appointment. The essential qualification must be met at the time of appointment.
The departmental proceeding was initiated with mala fide intentions after a change in management and the institution of a contempt petition.	The Court stated that the reasons for initiating the proceeding were immaterial. If the appellant did not possess the required qualification, he had no legal right to continue, regardless of the timing or motivation of the proceeding.
Appellant served the institution for more than nine years from 1988, so the High Court should have allowed the writ application.	The Court found that the length of service does not override the statutory requirement of possessing a valid degree at the time of appointment. Length of service cannot regularize an illegal appointment.
Appellant did not possess any valid degree from a University recognised by the University Grants Commission.	The Court agreed with the submission of the respondent.
Rule 3 of 1993 Rules providing for a degree from a recognised university as a sine quo non for appointment to a post. A subsequent acquisition, therefore, would not come to his rescue.	The Court agreed with the submission of the respondent.
Appellant having not fulfilled the conditions precedent for regularization of his services in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982, the High Court has rightly rejected the said prayer.	The Court agreed with the submission of the respondent.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that appointments made in violation of statutory rules are void and cannot be regularized.
✓ National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Somvir Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 493]: The Court cited this case to support the principle that an illegality cannot be regularized, especially when the statute explicitly states so.
✓ Post Master General, Kolkata and Ors. Vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5 SCC 317]: The Court used this citation to reinforce the view that appointments made contrary to statutory rules are void and cannot be regularized.
✓ Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 138]: The Court respectfully agreed with the view taken by the High Court in this case, which held that if an appointment is against regulations, no question of estoppel arises.
✓ Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Others [JT 2006 (1) SC 331]: The Court cited this case to support the principle that qualifications should be assessed on the date of recruitment, not at a later stage, unless rules permit it.
✓ Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that a candidate must hold the requisite qualification as of the cut-off date to be eligible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the statutory requirement that teachers must possess a valid degree from a recognized university at the time of their appointment. The Court placed significant emphasis on upholding the integrity of the appointment process and ensuring compliance with the prescribed qualifications. The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates a strong focus on legal compliance and the adherence to statutory requirements.

Reason	Percentage
Statutory Requirement of Valid Degree	40%
Illegality Cannot Be Regularized	30%
Compliance with Appointment Process	20%
Upholding Integrity of System	10%

Fact:Law Ratio: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a ratio of 30% fact and 70% law. This indicates that the Court heavily relied on legal principles and statutory requirements in making its judgment.

Category	Percentage
Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects)	30%
Law (Legal Considerations)	70%

Logical Reasoning:

ISSUE: Whether the services of the appellant can be said to have been illegally terminated or not.

Flowchart of the Court’s Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ An appointment made without the requisite educational qualifications as prescribed by law is void from the beginning.
✓ Subsequent acquisition of a valid degree does not rectify an initially illegal appointment.
✓ Length of service does not override the statutory requirement of possessing a valid degree at the time of appointment.
✓ Authorities must ensure that candidates possess valid degrees from recognized universities at the time of appointment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appointment to a teaching position is illegal and void if the appointee does not possess the required educational qualifications from a recognized institution at the time of appointment. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and ensures that subsequent qualifications do not validate an initially illegal appointment.

Conclusion

In Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of a teacher who did not possess a valid B.Ed. degree from a recognized university at the time of his appointment. The Court emphasized that possessing the requisite educational qualifications is a statutory requirement that cannot be overlooked or regularized by subsequent qualifications or length of service. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal provisions in appointments to maintain the integrity of the education system.

FAQ

Q: Can a teacher be fired for having a degree from an unrecognized university?

A: Yes, if the degree was a requirement for the job at the time of hiring and the university was not recognized by the appropriate authorities.
Q: What happens if a teacher gets a valid degree later on?

A: Getting a valid degree later usually doesn’t fix the problem if the initial appointment was illegal due to not having the right qualifications.
Q: Does it matter how long a teacher has worked if their degree is not valid?

A: No, the length of service doesn’t change the fact that the appointment was illegal from the start.
Q: What should schools do to avoid this problem?

A: Schools should always check that teachers have valid degrees from recognized universities before hiring them.

Source: Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission