RATTAN LAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                                                               569


                    RAl'TAN LAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.
                                 v.
                     STATE OF H.ARYANA & ORS.

                         AUGUST 16, 1985

             [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J

      Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - State
Government - Appointment of 'ad hoc' teachers in regular vacan-
cies - Validity and legality of.

      On the question whether it is open to the State Government
to appoint teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the coppnencement of an
academic year and terminate their services before the coomence-
ment of the next summer vacation, or earlier, to appoint them
again on an ad-hoc basis at the coomencement of next academic
year and to terminate their se!'Vices before the c011111encement of
the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do
so year after year.

      HELD: 1. The policy of "ad-hocism" followed by the State
Government in the appointment of teachers for quite a long period
has led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. The
State Government is expected to function as a model employer.
[571 E]

      In the instant case the State Government is directed to
take 1mmedlate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant
rules the vacancies in which those who are appointed on an ad-hoc
basis are now working and to allow all those who are now holding
these posts on an ad-hoc basis to remain in those posts till the
vacanciea are duly filled up. These ad-hoc teachers shall be paid
salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long
as they held office. Those who are entitled to maternity or
medical leave, shsll al.so . be granted such leave in accordance
with the rules. [571 F, 572 A~B]

      2. The State Government hss a duty to appoint teachers in
existing vacancies in · acordance with the rules. The State
Government hss failed to discharge that duty. A substantial
nwnber of ad-hoc appontments are made in the existing vacancies
which hsve remained unfilled for three to four years, In some
cases the . appointments are made for a period of six months only
and they are rene""d after a break of a few days. [571 A-B]
570              SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


      The number of teachers in the State who are appointed on
such ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If. the teachers had been
appointed regularly, they would have ·been entitled to the
benefits of swmner vacation along with the salary and allowances
payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges
such as .casual leave medical leave, maternity leave etc. avail-
able to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to
these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious
system of appointment adopted by tlte State Government. [571 11-C]

       3. These teachers who constitute the bull< of the educated
linemployed are compelled to accept theae jobs on an ad-hoc basis
with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to
be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel
policy.. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the
educational institutions and the children studying there. [571 D]

     .QRlGINAL JURISDICTION     Writ Petitions Nos.      4600,4600A
of 1985 etc.

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
         '
     .Rishi Kumar, S.M. Ashri, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev, Mrs.
Vinod Arya, R.C. Pathak, Vishnu Mathur, Mahabir Singh, Pankaj
Kalra, Serva Mitter, R.P. Singh, K.C. Dua, N.D. Garg, s. Sriniva-
san, Rathin Dass, K.K. Gupta, S;K. llagga, R. Ramachandran S.K.
Bisaria, Liixmi Arvind, R.P. Gupta, R. Ilana, Ranbir Singh Yadav,
H.M. Singh, Mrs. s.c. Jindal, R.K. Agnihotri, 11.s. Gupta, P.c.
Kapur, Kripal Singh and Amlan Ghosh for the Petitioners.

     V.C.'Mahajan, I;s. Goer, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar for
the Respondents.
         ;   .
      The '·Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         \ '
      VENKATARAMIAll, J. In all these petitions the common
question which arises for decision is whether it is open to the
 State Government to apoint teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the
·commencement of an academic year and terminate their services
·before the commmencement of the next summer vacation or.earlier
 to ·appoillt them again on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of
 next academic year and to terminate their services before the
 commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to
continue to do so year after year. A substantial number of such
ad-hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies which have
              RAITAN LAL v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J. J              571


  remained unfilled for three to four years. It is the duty of the
  State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in those
  vacancies in accordance with the rules as early as possible. The
  State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in
  these cases. It has been appointing teachers for quite some time
  on an ad-hoc basis· for short periods as stated above without any
  justifiable reason. In some cases the ·appointments are made for a
  period of six months only and they are renewed af tet a break of
. a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who
  are thus appointed on such ad-hoc basis is very· large indeed. If
  the teachers had been appointed regularly they would have been
  entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary
  and allowancee payable in respect of that period and to all other
  privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave
  etc. available to all the Government servants. These benefits
  are denied to . these ad-hoc teachers . unreasonably on account of
  this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State
  Government. These ad-hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to
  an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who
  constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled t.o
  accept these jobs on an ad-hoc basis with miserable conditions of
  service. The government appears to be eXploiting this situation.
  This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious
  repercussions on the educational institutions and the · children
  studying there. The policy of 'ad-hocism' followed by the State
  Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14
  and Article 16. of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be
  permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the
  State Government is expected to function as a model employer.

       We, therefore, direct the State Government to take imme-
 diate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the
 vacanies in which those who are appointed on an ad-hoc basis are
 now working and to. allow all those who are now holding these
 posts on ad-hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies
 are 'duly filled up. The teachers who   are   now   working   on   such
 ad-hoc basis if they have the prescribed qualification may also
 apply for being appointed regularly in those posts. The State
 Government may also consider ~ympathetically the question of
 relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appoint-
 ment to those posts in the case.of those who have been victims of
 this system of 'ad-hoc' appointments. If any of the petitioners
 in these petitions has under any existing rule acquired the right
 to be treated as a regularly appointed teacher, his case shall be
 considered by the State Government and an appropriate order may
 be passed in his case.
572                SUP&EME COURT REPORTS        [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


      We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government
under which 'ad-hoc' teachers are denied the salary and
allowances for the period of the summer vacation by,resorting to
the fictionial breaks of the type referred to above. These
'ad-hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the
period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under
this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave,
shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.

      If the petitioners have any other grievances,        they may
approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

         These petitions are accordingly disposed of.



A.p,J,                                           Petition dismissed.