Supreme Court of India
PRAMOD KUMARversusU.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 324
- Decided
- 7 March 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
An appointment made in contravention of the statutory educational qualification requirements is void and cannot be regularised by later obtaining the requisite degree; consequently, the termination of the appellant's services was lawful.
Summary
Pramod Kumar was appointed as an ad‑hoc Assistant Teacher in 1988 on the basis of a B.Ed. degree from Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, an institution not recognised under the University Grants Commission Act. When the management discovered the degree was unrecognised, he was directed to obtain a B.Ed. from a recognised university, which he later did. After a change in management, departmental proceedings were initiated and his services were terminated in 1997. He challenged the termination before the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition, and a special appeal was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the original appointment violated the statutory qualification requirements under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act and was therefore void; a subsequent acquisition of a recognised degree could not regularise the appointment. Consequently, the termination was upheld and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- The appointment of a teacher without possessing a degree recognised under the UGC Act violates statutory qualification requirements.
- Whether a subsequent acquisition of a recognised degree can regularise an appointment that was originally void.
- Whether the termination of the appellant's services was lawful.
- Whether the removal of difficulties order under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, applies to the appellant.
Legislation cited
Subjects
appointmentad‑hoc teachereducational qualificationunrecognised degreevoid appointmenttermination of serviceservice lawUGC Actstatutory qualificationregularisation
Judgment
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 559
PRAMOD KUMAR A
V.
U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES
COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2006)
M/" "CH 7, 2008 B
(S.B. SINHA AND r1ARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
Service Law:
Appointment of teacher on ad hoc basis - Possessing a C
B. Ed. degree from an Institute not recognized under relevant
statute - Termination of services - HELD: If essential
educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not
satisfied, ordinarily, the same cannot be condoned - An
appointment contrary to statute/statutory rules would be void D
in law - The appointment being ad hoc, Management, on
coming to know of the fact, should have terminated the same
forthwith - High Court rightly upheld the termination order- It
is a matter of concern that appointments are being offered
without verifying whether degrees possessed by candidates E
are valid or not.
The appellant, possessing a B.Ed. Degree from
Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Sankat Mochal Cham,
Darbhanga, Bihar, was appointed as an ad hoc Assistant
Teacher in C.T. Grade, in a Management run Inter College F
in U.P. by its Principal/Manager on 29.11.1988. When it
transpired that the B. Ed. Degree obtained by the appellant
was not from an Institution recognized by a University
under the University Grants Commission Act or any other
State Act, he was asked to obtain a B.Ed. Degree from a G
recognized University. Thereafter, he was stated to have
obtained a requisite degree. On change of the
Management of the Institution, departmental proceedings
were initiated against the appellant on the charge that he
559 H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
( '
A had obtained the appointment on the basis of a fabricated
and illegal B.Ed. degree. The proceedings culminated in
termination of his services. Having unsuccessfully
approached the High Court by way of a writ petition and
thereafter a special appeal, the teacher filed the instant
B appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The qualifications for holding a post have
been laid down under a statute. Any appointment in
,.,
c violation thereof would be a nullity. If the essential
educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not
satisfied, ordinarily, the same cannot be condoned. Such
an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is
contrary to the statute/statutory rules wo~ld be void in
law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when
D the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Maithili
Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Mochan Dham from where
the appellant is said to have obtained B.Ed. degree was
a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It
is not in dispute that the said institution was not
E recognized by any University. A degree is recognized
only if it is granted by a University constituted in terms
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under
any State or Parliamentary Act. No University can be
established by a private management without any
F statutory backing. [paras 15, 17, 19] [569-A, C, D, F;
570-A, 8] ~
...,
1.2 It is a matter of some concern that appointments
are being offered by the authorities of the State without
verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed
G by the candidate(s) are valid or not. In the instant case, it
was an ad hoc appointment. The management of the
school, when it came to learn that the appellant did not
possess a degree of B.Ed. from a recognized University,
should have terminated his services forthwith. It did not
H do so for reasons best known to it. It has not been shown
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 561
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS.
that the management of the school had any authority to A
allow the appellant to obtain the requisite degree from any
other University during the tenure of his services. Even
the Commission in its counter affidavit did not say so.
[para 16 and 20] [569-B; 570-C, D]
Ram Bhagat Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and
8
Ors. 1997(4) RSJ 134 - distinguished.
Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) And Anr vs. State of Punjab and
Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 138; Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. vs. State of
U.P and Ors. JT 2006(1) SC 331; and Ashok Kumar Sonkar c
vs. Union of India and Ors. [2007] 4 SCC 54 - relied on.
2.1 A departmental proceeding against the appellant
might have been initiated after the change of
management. Assuming that the said proceeding v1as
initiated after the contempt proceeding was initiated, the 0
appellant, however, has filed a writ petition for issuance
of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus. He, therefore,
must establish existence of a legal right in himself and a
corresponding legal duty in the State. If he did not possess
the requisite qualification to hold a post, he could not have E
any legal right to continue. It was, therefore, immaterial
as to why and when the said proceeding had been
initiated against him. [para 22] [571-D, E]
Shainda Hasan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. F
(1990) 3 SCC 48; Dr M.S. Mudhoi and Anr vs. S.D. Halegkar
and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 591; and Santosh Yadav (Smt.) vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 320- distinguished.
2.2 The services of the appellant had been terminated
in the year 1997 and the cut off date having been fixed of G
1998 under the removal of difficulties orders issued under
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,
1982, the provision is not applicable in the instant case.
[para 28] [574-A, B]
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A Prabhat Kumar Shama and Ors. Vs. State of UP and
Ors. (1996) 10 SC 62- relied on.
Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management,
Vidyawati Darbari Girls' College [1994] All. L.J. 1077 -
referred to.
8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2568 of 2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2004 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in S.A. No. 216/1997.
c
P.S. Patwalia, O.K. Garg, Bheem Pratap Singh, Aman
Preet Singh Rahi, Abhishek Garg and R.C . Kaushik for the
Appellant.
S.R. Singh, T.N. Singh, S.K. Mishra, Prashant Chaudhary,
0 Sandeep, Jitendra Mohan Sharma and Nirajana Singh for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Appellant was appointed as an
E Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade in an Intermediate College.
Admittedly, essential qualifications and other conditions for
recruitment therefor are prescribed by Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (the Act) and
the Rules framed thereunder. Section 16 of the Act provides for
F the essential qualifications. In terms of the Act, rules were framed
by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1993 known as the Uttar ....
'Jl
Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules
(the Rules).
Section 16 of the Act reads, thus:
G
"16. Appointments to be made only on the recommen-
dations 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, 21-0, 33, 33-
H
PRAMOD KJMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 563
SE..RVICES COMMISSlON & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
A, 33-B. 33-C, 33-0, 33-E and 33·-F, every appointment A
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: B
Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the
~- provisions of Section 16-EE of the Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, shall mutatis mutandis apply:
Provided further that the appointment of a teacher by c
transfer from one Institution to another, may be made in
accordance with the regulations made under Clause (c)
of Sub-section (2) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate
Education Act, 1921:
(2) Any appointment made in contravention of the D
provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be void."
2. The minimum qualification for Masters and Teachers
were laid down in the Rules as prescribed under Section 16E,
16F and Section 16FF of the Act.
E
Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:
"3. Qualifications and experience, etc. for
appointment a~ teacher. - (1) The minimum academic
qualification for appointment as teacher shall be as given
in Regu~ation 1 under Chapter II of the Regulations, framed F
under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(2) No male person shall be eligible for appointment to the
post of the head of an institution or teacher in a girls
lnstitution, G
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply
in relation to -
(i) a teacher already working in a permanent capacity
in a gtrls institution for promotion or appointment to H
.,
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A any higher post of a teacher not being the post of the
head of an institution in the same institution.
(ii) Appointment as a teacher for the subject of music in
an institution to a person who is blind.
B Provided further that when a suitable lady candidate
is not available for appointment in a girls institution for the
post of a teacher, not being the post of head of institution,
or for any other sufficient reason, the Commission is
satisfied that it is in the in~erest of the students so to do,
c it may recommend a male candidate for such post:
Provided also that, before recommending a male
candidate in accordance with the preceding proviso, the
Commission may obtain and consider the views of the
Director and Management."
D
3. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that prior to coming
into force of the said Act, the matters relating to recruitment of
Assistant Teachers used to be governed by the U. P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (1921 Act). A bare perusal of the
aforementioned provisions read with those of 1921 Act would
E clearly show that the possession of a graduate degree from a
University recognized under the University Grants Commission
Act (UGC Act) or any other State Act was at all material and still
is imperative.
...
F 4. Appellant admittedly did his B.Ed. Degree from Maithili ..,
Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Sankat Mochan Dham Darbhanga, Bihar.
The name of the said institution allegedly figured in a 'Directory
of Institutions for Higher Education', published by Ministry of
Education and Culture, Government of India in the year 1982. It,
however, stands admitted that it was not an institution recognized
G
under the UGC Act.
5. He was appointed on 29.11.1988 by the Principal/
Manager, Shri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli (Meerut) stating;
"You are hereby informed with pleasure that the teacher's
H
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 565
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.}
- committee of the college has appointed you in A
selection
short term vacancy as ad-hoc assistant teacher in C.T.
Grade on the basis of interview held on 20.11.1988 up to
the reversion of Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma at his post or
vacancy filled up and joined with a person selected by
commission at the above post. B
Please join the duty at above post within 10 days, otherwise
y·
this appointment letter of yours will be deemed as
cancelled."
6. It became known to the University that he had not been c
possessing a degree granted by a university recognized by the
Commission.
He was asked to obtain a B.Ed, degree from a recognized
University within a period of two years. An opportunity was
granted to him to obtain such a degree by a letter dated D
18.2.1993 stating;
"You, Shri Pramod Kumar, Asst. Teacher CT Grade, know
that you have acquired B.Ed, degree from Maithili
Vishwavidyapeeth Darbhanga. We came to know from
reliable sources ~hat the said University from where you E
have acquired B.Ed, degree has not been recognized by
University Grants Commission.
Earlier also by the Manager of Institution Shri Naresh
~ Singh Rathi has also directed you to acquire B.Ed, degree F
from a recognized University within a period of two years.
Now I, as a last opportunity, direct you to acquire B.Ed,
degree from a recognized University. You are requested
to acquire B.Ed. degree in future otherwise Managing
Committee shall be constrained to take appropriate action."
G
7. He prayed for appearing in the said examination in B.Ed.
Correspondence Examination from Maharshi Dayanand
University, Rohtak (Haryana). Allegedly, such permission was
granted and he obtarned a requisite degree. Before us, however,
only a marksheet issued by the Controller of Examination of H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak has been placed.
Whether the Correspondence Course for B.Ed. Degree granted
by the said University is valid and recognized by the State of
U. P. or not is not known.
8. Inter alia on the premise that he had not been paid his
B salary, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad which was marked as Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No. 1338 of 1989. Upon noticing that he had been ."""'
getting his salary from 1.1.1991, by a Judgment and Order dated
5.7.1996, the High Court directed the respondents to pay the
c arrears of salary from 1.12.1988 to 31.12.1990.
9. Allegedly, as the said Order was not complied with, a
Contempt Petition was filed wherein a show cause notice was
issued by the High Court.
D It is, however, not in dispute that a notice to show cause
was served upon him on or. about 11.1 .1987, on the premise
charge that he had obtained his appointment on the basis of a
fabricated and illegal B.Ed degree. Cause was shown by him
on 16.1.1997.
E 10. A departmental proceeding was thereafter initiated
against the appellant. On completion thereof, his services were
terminated by an order dated 12.2.1997. He filed a Writ Petition
questioning the correctness of the said order. By reason of a
judgment and order dated 9.3.1997, a learned Single Judge of ...
F the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition stating: .,
"After considering respective contentions of the parties
and in view of the admitted facts, I find that the petitioner
was appointed originally when admittedly he was not having
proper qualification. The petitioner has failed to show under
G
what circumstances he could be validly appointed on .the
basis of such qualification of bachelor of education degree
awarded by a university which was non recognised. That ->·
being so the appointment itself is bad. No question of
estoppel also arises in such case. The law in this connection
H
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 567
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
has been decided in the case of Ravinder Sharma and A
Anr. v. State of Punjab and Drs. reported on 19951 S.C. C.
138.
In present case the petitioner's appointment was not
having an approval and he was only paid salary under the
court's order. Moreover, admittedly the petitioner's B
appointment was without there being a proper qualification
.,.. and as such the appointment of the petitioner was in
violation of Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. In the circumstances, the petitioner
is not entitled to protection under Section 16-C(3) of the c
said act."
11. The High Court, furthermore, in its judgment took into
consideration the contention of the appellant that his services
should have been regularised in terms of Section 33-A and
D
Section 33-B of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Act, 1982, as he had been possessing
the prescribed qualification at the material point of time.
12. A Special Appeal preferred by the appellant against
the said judgment and order has been dismissed by the Division E
Bench holding;
~~considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
as discussed above, we are of the view that the initial
appointment of the petitioner, being wholly illegal and void
by virtue of its being de hors the rules his appointment to F
"'
the said post of assistant teacher in the Institution could
not be permitted to continue any more, even if he had
managed subsequently to obtain another of B.Ed. We are
in full agreement with the Ld. Single Judge who has not
found any good ground for interference under the extra G
ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The decision given in the writ petition,
thus, does not require to be disturbed in the present intra
court appeal, which lacks merits and is hereby dismissed
with no order as to cost." H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A 13. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appeUant in support of this appeal
inter alia submitted:
(i) Keeping in view the fact that the appellant did not
conceal any material fact and the management was
B aware that the degree possessed by him was not
granted by a recognized university, it is not a case
where he can be said to have committed a fraud
upon the institution.
c (ii) In any event, as the management had permitted him
to obtain a fresh degree which having been obtained,
tiis services should have been directed to be
continued.
(iii) The action of the management was mala fide as the
D departmental proceeding was initiated only after the
change in management and in view of institution of ,.
a contempt petition against the management of the
institution.
(iv) Appellant having served the institution for more than
E nine years from 1988, the High Court should have
allowed the writ application.
14. Mr. S.R. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted:
y
F (a) Appellant having not possessed any valid degree
from a University recognised by the University Grants
Commission, his appointment was illegal.
(b) Rule 3 of 1993 Rules providing for a degree from a
recognised university as a sine quo non for
G
appointment to a post. A subsequent acquisition,
therefore, would not come to his rescue.
(c) Appellant having not fulfilled the conditions precedent
for regularization of his services in terms of the
..
H provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 569
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
Selection BoardAct•. 1982, the High Court has rightly A
rejected the said prayer.
15. The qualifications for holding a post have been laid
down under a statute. Any appointment in violation thereof would
be a nullity.
B
16. It is a matter of some concern that appointments are
being offered by the authorities of the State without verifying the
fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed by the candidate(s)
are valid or not. It was an ad hoc appointment. Why despite the
same, he was allowed to obtain degree from another university c
is not known.
17. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment
to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be
condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointmentwh~ch
is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An D
illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when the statute in
no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be. {See
Secretary, State of Kamataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and
Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v.
Somvir Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 493] and Post Master General, E
Kolkata and Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5 SCC 317]
18. Various institutions have sprung up in different parts of
India representing that their degrees are recognized. However,
..-
even no such representation appears to have been made to
the appellant by the said institution. The directory of institutions F
for higher education merely gives details of the institutions. No
statement was made therein that it was a recognised university.
19. Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Machan Dham was
a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It is said to
G
have been founded in the year 1962.
Admittedly, it is a privately managed institution. Although it
offered a. large number of courses like Madhyama, Visarad,
.1' Shastri, Acharya, ·Vidyabhaskar, Vidyaratna, Vidyavaridhi,
Vidyavachaspati, Mahamahopadhyaya, the number of teachers H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A therein were nine only. What sort of education was imparted
therein is not known. How an institution could be run with a
teacher strength of nine can veri well be imagined.
It is not in dispute that the said institution was not
recognized by any University. A degree is recognized only if it is
B granted by a University constituted in terms of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under any State of
Parliamentary Act. No University can be established by a private
management without any statutory backing.
c 20. The ma~agement of the school, when it came to learn
that the appellant did not possess a degree of B.Ed, from a
recognised University, should have terminated his services
forthwith. It did not do so for reasons best known to it. It has not
been shown to us that the management of the school had any
authority to allow the appellant to obtain the requisite degree
D
from any other University during the tenure of his services. Even
the Commission in its counter affidavit, although otherwise
supports the case of the appellant, did not say so.
Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Punjab
E and Haryana High Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma and Ors. v.
State of Haryana and Drs. 1997 (4) RSJ 134 wherein it was
directed~
"With a· view to protect the interest of the students
F
community, we direct the Government of Haryana to take
steps to prevent future recruitment of persons poss·essing -
y
qualifications awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad, and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag,
Allahabad, and at the same time take appropriate
measures to dispense with the services of the unqualified
G teachers. For this purpose, the Government of Haryana is
directed to issue written instructions to all concerned that
in future no appointment be given to the persons ~·
possessing qualifications by the institutions referred to
herein above. We also direct the Government of Haryana ...
H to take steps for terminating the services of all such
I' ~
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 571
SFRVICES COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA; J.]
teachers who have secured employment on the basis of A
degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by Hindi Sajhitya
Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Prayag. Allahabad, However, those who have completed
three years service should be given an opportunity to
acquire the requisite qualification within a stipulated time. B
In case they fail to acquire such qualification, then
appropriate order be passed to dispense with the services
of such persons."
~
21. We, with respect, do not subscribe to the said view. In
any event, 1t is not a case where, this Court is to protect the c
interest of the students, The question herein is· as to whether
the services of the appellant can be said to have been illegally
terminated or not.
22. A departmental proceeding against the appeHant might
D
have been initiated after the change of management. We will
also assume that the said proceeding was initiated after the
contempt proceeding was initiated. Appellant, however, has filed
a writ application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of
mandamus. He, therefore, must establish existence of a legal
right :n himself and a corresponding legal duty h1 the State. If he E
did not possess the requisite qualification to hold a post, he
could r.ot have any legal right to continue. It was, therefore,
immaterial as to why and when the said proceeding had been
initiated against him.
F
Reliance placed by Mr. P.S. Patwalia on Shainda Hasan
.."" v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(1990} 3 SCC 48] is not
apposite. Therein a concession was made on behalf of the State
that the University had agreed that asking the appellant therein
to leave the job after 16 years will be doing injustice to her. Such
G
a view might have been taken by this Court in exercise of its
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of lndra. The question, however, that arose therein was as to
whether the Selection Committee could grant relaxation of the
educational qualification vis-a-vis the experience required to
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20081 4 S.C.R.
.'
A be obtained. It was held that such a power did not exist in the
Selection Committee.
It was, therefore, a case where relaxation in regard to
experience was sought for and granted. It was not a case where
the appellant therein lacked basic educational qualification.
B Herein, we are concerned with a case where the appellant
lacked basic educational qualification.
23. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Patvvalia on Dr.
M.S. Mudho/ andAnr. v. S.D. Ha/egkarand Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC
c 591 ]. Therein a writ of quo warranto was sought for in a case
involving the question as to whether a degree granted in favour
of the appellant therein was equivalent to another degree or
not. It was found that as public interest would not suffer, a writ of
quo warranto may not be issued. The Court, therefore, did not
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
D
24. Yet again reliance has been placed on Santosh Yadav
(Smt.) v. State of Haryana and Ors. [(1996) 9 SCC 320]
Appellant therein was having a diploma which was not approved
by the State of Haryana and despite the same, teachers were
E appointed to meet the State's educational needs. The validity
of the said degree was not in question. Not only appointments
were made but also appointment to the appellant was offered
in 1980. His services were confirmed in 1984 and sought to be
terminated in the year 1990. This Court noticed that a relaxation
F was granted by the State itself which was available to her and
others similarly situated. She, having obtained regularisation in
her service, it was wrong and arbitrary on the part of educational
-..,
department and the school to deprive her of the job. The same
is not the case here.
G 25. A similar question, on the other hand, came up for
consideration before this Court in Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and
Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 138] wherein a
three Judges' Bench held;
"12. The appellant was directly appointed. In such a case,
H
\ )
PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION 573
SERVICES COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
the qualification must be either: A
(i) A Graduate/Intermediate second class or,
(ii) Matric first class.
Admittedly, the appellant did not possess this qualification.
That being so, the appointment is bad. The Commission 8
recommended to the Government for relaxation of the
qualification under Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The
Government rejected that recommendation. Where,
therefore, the appointment was clearly against Regulation
7, it was liable to be set aside. That being so, no question c
of estoppel would ever arise. We respectfully agree with
the view taken by the High Court."
26. Almost to the same effect is the decision of this Court
in Mohd. Sartaj and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors. [JT 2006 (1)
D
SC 331] holding;
"It is settled law that the qualification should have been
seen which the candidate possessed on the date of
recruitment and not at a later stage unless rules to that
regard permit it. The minimum qualification prescribed E
under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment.
Equivalence of degree of Moallium-e-Urdu, Jamia Urdu
Aligarh with that of B.T.C. in the year 1994 would not entail
the benefit to the appellants on the date they were
appointed. The appellants could not have been appointed F
to the post of Asstt, Teachers without having training
..
,111
required under Rule 8. That being the case, the
appointments of the appellants were de hors the Rules
and could not be treated to be continued. For the aforesaid
reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeals and G
are, accordingly, dismissed."
27. Recently again in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of
India and Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 54], it was held;
"16. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A requisite qualification as on the said cut-of date. He was,
therefore, not eligible therefor."
28. Some arguments have also been advanced before us
in regard to applicability of Removal of Difficulties Orders Issued
under U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,
8 1982. The services of the appellant had been terminated in the
year 1997 and the cut off date having been fixed on 1998, the
said act, in our opinion, is not applicable. The benefits rendered
thereunder would not be not applicable in view of the F~ll Bench
decision of the High Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of
C Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls' College 1994 All. L.J.
1077 which has been approved by this Court in Prabhat Kumar
Sharma and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. [(1996) 10 SCC 62]
29. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and
0
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
R.P. . Appeal dismissed.
..,
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appointment"Sign in to search