Holding

The appellant meets the criteria of Section 3 of the Validation Act and is entitled to regularisation with effect from his initial appointment date.

Summary

Rabinarayan Mohapatra was appointed as a Hindi teacher in an aided school on an 89‑day contract starting 12 July 1982, with successive short‑term renewals and one‑day breaks, but was not paid salary for summer vacations. After 1986 his appointment was not approved by the education authorities, yet he continued to serve under the managing committee. He filed a writ petition seeking regularisation under Section 3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989. The Orissa High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the condition that his appointment would continue only until a candidate from the select list was appointed excluded him from the Act’s benefit. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 3, held that the appellant satisfied all the statutory conditions—appointment within the prescribed dates, continuous service of more than one year, and no termination for misconduct—and that the High Court had read a restriction into the Act that was not present. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be treated as a regularly appointed teacher from 12 July 1982 with payment of arrears.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant satisfies the conditions of Section 3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989 for regularisation.
Whether the stipulation that the appointment would continue only until a candidate from the select list is appointed bars the appellant from the benefit of the Validation Act.
Whether the High Court erred in interpreting the Validation Act.

Legislation cited

Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989s. 3

Subjects

regularisationad hoc teachersvalidation actdiscriminationappointmentsalary arrearscontinuous serviceSupreme Court of India

Judgment

SRI RABINARAYAN MOHAPATRA
A v. ,,..,...
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

APRIL 2, 1991

B [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ, M.H. KANIA AND
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

Orissa Aided Educational Institution (Appointment of Teachers ~
Validation) Act, 1989-Section 3-Legislative intention of-Appoint-
ment of teacher on 89 day basis with one day break-Discriminatory.
c -~
Orissa Aided Education Institutions (Appointment of Teachers
Validation) Act, 1989-Section 3-Scope and application of-Condi-
tions to be satisfied.
---
~
The appellant was appointed as Hindi Teacher in the M.E. School
D for a period of 89 days from July 12, 1982 by the District Inspector
(Schools) on the recommendation of the Managing Committee of the
School. He continued to serve the school with repeated spells of 89
day-appointments and one day break in between the spells, till May
25, 1986. He was not paid the salary for the period of summer vacations
during all these years.
E
Although the appellant continues to serve the school to date ·-
under orders of the managing committee, but his appointment after 1986 was
not approved by the educational authorities, in spite of the resolution of
the managing committee dated July 6, 1987. ...
F The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming
regularisation with effect from July 12, 1982, contending that he was
entitled to be regularised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the ....._
Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Valida-~
tion) Act, 1989.

G The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the appellant
was not entitled to the benefit of the Validation Aci. against which
present appeal was f"tled by the appellant contending that his services_
/
were to be regularised with effect from July 12, 1982 under the pro- ~
visions contained in Sectinn 3 of the Validation Act.

H Allowing the appeal, this Court,

990
R. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA 991

HELD: 1.1. The Validation Act has been enacted by the Ol'Wa A
Legislature with the obvious object of granting relief to those members
of the teaching community who are being exploited for years together
by keeping them in short spell appointments like 89 day-appointments
with one day break and in the process denying them their rightful dues
and other service benefits. [994G-995A] B
1.2. An appointment on 89 day basis with one day break which
deprives a teacher of his salary for the period of summer-vacation and
other service benefits, is wholly arbitrary and. suffers from the vice of
discrimination. The Validation Act covers the field upto December 31,

-. ·."' t'984. The State of Orissa will do well to consider the cases of all those
who have completed one year or more as ad~hoc teachers after C
December 31, 1984 and come-out with a scheme or any other appro-
priate measure to regularise their sel-vices. [995C-D]

2. To come within t~ purview of the Validation Act the following
conditions are to be satisfied:
D
1. The appointment by the managing authority of the school on
ad hoc basis must be on or after the 1st December 1976 but not later
than 31st December 1984.

2. The services as such teacher is continuous for a period of at
E
least one year without any break or with a break or breaks in one or
more aided schools;

3. Is continuing as such teacher or his services were terminated
after the 31st December, 1984 save for misconduct. [995E-G]
F
2.2. The appellant was ap_pointed on July 12, 1982 and has been
4 _working with the approval of the authorities for almost 4 years with
short breaks. The managing committee is still utilising his senices
though there is no approval by the educational authorities for the
period subsequent to 1986. The case of the appellant is, thus, fully
covered by Section 3 of the Validation Act. [995G-996A]
G
"r·· 3. The High Court erred in denying the benefit of the Validation
· Act to the appellant on the ground that his initial appointment for 89
days was conditioned by the stipulation that he would continue until
replaced by a candidate from the select list. The High Court read into
the Act what was not there. [996A-B] H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 478, followed.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1396
of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1990 qf the Orissa High
B Court in Case No. 2867 of 1987.

Mrs. Uma Mehta Jain and M.A. Firoi for the Appellant. ~

Ashok Kumar Panda for the Respondents.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
c
-
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
~
Rabinarayan Mohapatra the appellant was appointed as Hindi
Teacher in Bani-gochha, M.E. School (Orissa) for a period of 89 days
D or till a candidate selected by the State Selection Board was made
available. He joined the school on July 12, 1982. The appointment was
made by the District Inspector (Schools) on the recommendation of
the managing committee of the school. He continued to serve the
school with repeated spells of 89 day-appointments and one day __._
break in between the spells, till May 25, 1986. He was not paid the
E salary for the period of summer vacations during all these years.
Although the appellant continues to serve the school to-date under
orders of the managing committee yet his appointment after 1986 has
not been approved by the educational authorities. The managing com-
mittee even passed a resolution on July 6, 1987, requesting the educa-
tional authorities of the State of Orissa to approve the continuous
F appointment of the appellant as Hindi Teacher but no action was taken
by the said authorities. _._
The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con-
stitution of India before the Orissa High Court claiming regularisation
as Hindi Teacher with effect from July 12, 1982. The only argument
G raised befC\re the High Court was that the appellant was entitled to be
regularised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Orissa Aided -{
Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act,
1989 (hereinafter called 'the Validation Act'). The relevant part of
Section 3 of the Act is reproduced hereinafter:

H 3. Validation of certain appointments.-Notwithstanding
R. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 993

anything contained in the Education Act or in the Rules or
A
Regulations framed thereunder,-

(a) graduate teachers, intermediate and matriculate
teachers, physical -education teachers and classical teachers
and Hindi teachers of aided schools appointed by the
managing authorities of such schools on ad hoc basis on or B
after the 1st December, 1976 but not later than the 31st
December, 1984;
(b)

- (c) ........... .
who have continuous service as such teachers or lecturers
for a period of at least one year without any break or with a
c
break or breaks in one or more aided schools or Colleges
and who are contixiuing as such teachers or whose services
have been terminated after the 31st December, 1984 save
for misconduct or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall for all D
intents and purposes, be deemed to have been validly and
regularly appointed, and no such appointment shall be
chaHenged in any court of law merely on the ground that
the appointment was made otherwise than in accordance
with procedure laid down in the Education Act and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder; ........... .
E
The High Court rejected the prayer for regularisation, and held
that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Validation Act,
on the following reasoning;

"Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 12.7.1982
and continued till 18. 7. 1986 with breaks in between and the F
petitioner's appointment was conditioned by the stipula-
tion that he would continue until replaced by a candidate
from the Select List. His case, therefore, will not come
within the purview of the Validation Act and, therefore,
the question of issuing any -direction to reg_ularise his
service in a substantive vacancy because of the Validation G
Act does not arise."

We have heard Mrs. Uma Mehta Jain, learned counsel for the
appellant. This Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, A.LR. 1987
S.C. 478 speaking through Venkataramaiah, J. (as the learned Judge
H
then was) observed as under:
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] l. S.C.R.

"The State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge
A
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 after break of a few days. The
B 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 allowances payable in respect Jf that period ·

c
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 unneces~1rily subjected to an arbitrary
'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the
D . bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept
these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of
service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situ-
ation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to
have serious repercussions on the education institutions
and the children studying there. The policy of 'ad hocism'
E followed by the State Government for a long period has led
to the breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such a
situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is need-
less to say that the State Government is expected to func-
tion as a model employer".

F "We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Govern-
ment under which 'ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary •
and allowances or the period of the summer vacation by
resorting to the fictional 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
G 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". I

The Validation Act has been enacted by the Orissa legislature
with the obvious object of granting relief to those members of teaching
H community who are being exploited for years together b_y keeping
R. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 995
·~
them in short spell appointments like 89 day-appointments as here
A
with one day break and in the process denying them their rightful-dues
and other service benefits. Inspite of repeated depreciation by this
Court the practice continues to be followed by various State Govern-
ments in the country. Under the Constitution the State is committed to
secure right to education for all citizens. Bulk of our population is yet
illiterate. Till the time illiteracy is effaced·from the country the resolu- B
)tt>-- tion enshrined in the Preamble cannot be fulfilled. Education is the
dire need of the country. There are neither enough schools nor
teachers to teach. Insecurity is writ-large on the. face of the teaching-
community because .of nebulous and unsatisfactory conditions of
• service. In order to make the existing educational set-up effective and
..-. efficient it is necessary to do away with ad-hocism in teaching appoint-
ments. An appointment on 89 day basis with one day break which c
deprives a teacher of his salary for the period of summer-vacation and
~~ other service benefits, is wholly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of
discrimination. The Validation Act covers the field upto December 31,
1984. The State of Orissa will do well to consider the cases of all those
who have completed one year or more as ad-hoc teachers after D
December 31, 1984 and come-out with a scheme or any other
appropriate measure fo regularise their services.

_.,_ Mrs. Jain contended that on the plain reading of Section 3 of the
Validation Act the appellant is entitled to be regularised as Hindi
Teacher with effect from July 12, 1982. To come within the purview of E
the Validation Act the following conditions are to be satisfied:

1. The appointment by the managing authority of the school on
ad hoc basis must be on or after the 1st December, 1976 but not
later than 31st December, 1984;
F
2. The service as such teacher is continuous for a period of
atleast one year without any break or with a break or breaks in
one or more aided schools;

3. Is continuing as such teacher or his services were terminated
after the 31st December, 1984 save for misconduct. G

The appellant was appointed on July 12, 1982 and has been
working with the approval of the authorities for almost 4 years with
short breaks. The managing committee is still utilising his services
though there is no approval by the educational authorities for the
period subsequent to 1986. It is no body's case that his services were H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ('i991] 1 S.C.R.
-....r_·
A ever terminated on grounds of inefficiency or misconduct. The case of
the appellant is, thus, fully covered by Section 3 of the Validation Act.
We are of the view that the High Court erred in denying the benefit of
the Validation .Act to the appelJant on the ground that his initial
appointment for 89 days was conditioned by the stipulation that he
would continue until replaced by a candidate from the select list. The
B High Court read into the Act what was not there. In response to the
notice issueq in the Special Leave Petition the managing committee ~
through its Secretary-cum-Head Master has stated that the appellant is
still continuing to serve as Hindi teacher in the school under the orders

C
of the managing committee.

We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
...
.-...
direct the respondents to treat the appellant as the regularly appointed
Hindi teacher in the school with effect from July 12, 1982. The appel-
lant shall be entitled to his salary, including the salary for summer ""'-
vacations and other breaks which must be taken as non est, from the
date of his regular appointment i.e. July 12, 1982. The respondents are
D directed to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments due to the
appellant as a result of his regularisation within a period of 3 months
from today.

V.P.R. Appeal allowed. ,4.-