Holding

The appellant is senior to the first respondent because both were deemed substantively appointed on 21 April 1977 and seniority is therefore determined by age.

Summary

Sudama Singh and Nath Saran Singh were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1967 and later promoted on an ad‑hoc basis to Lecturers. The Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977 introduced section 16GG, which regularised such ad‑hoc teachers by deeming them substantively appointed with effect from the date the section commenced (21 April 1977). A dispute arose over seniority: the respondent claimed seniority based on his earlier ad‑hoc promotion on 1 March 1976, while the appellant argued that, since both were deemed substantively appointed on the same date, seniority should be decided by age under Regulation 3(1)(b). The District Inspector held the appellant senior; the High Court reversed, granting seniority to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that section 16GG makes both teachers substantively appointed on 21 April 1977, so seniority is determined by age, making the older appellant senior. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment.

Issues considered

The effect of section 16GG of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on the date of substantive appointment for teachers regularised from ad‑hoc status.
Whether an earlier ad‑hoc promotion influences seniority when section 16GG deems teachers substantively appointed on a later common date.
Application of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Regulations framed under the Act to determine seniority based on age when substantive appointments occur on the same date.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921s. 16GG(1), s. 16GG(2)

Subjects

seniorityregularisationad‑hoc appointmentsubstantive appointmentageeducation lawUttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Actinterpretation of statute

Judgment

SUDAMA SINGH
A
v.
NATH SARAN SINGH & ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 1987.

[E.S VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B
1
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: s. 16 GG 1Regu-
( lations, Chapter II, Regulation 3(1)(b)-Seniority-Ad hoc Lecturers
deemed to be appointed as such on substantive basis from same date-

-~ Held seniority to be determined on the basis of age.

A large number of teachers working in the educational institu-
c
tions governed by the• Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
were appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis. The question of reg-
ularisation of their services engaged the attention of the State Govern-
ment and it was decided to amend the Act by an Ordinance. Section
16-GG was accordingly introduced on April, 21, 1977. The Ordinance D
was replaced by the Uttar Prlldesh Education Laws Amendment Act,
1977.

The appellant and respondent No. 1 were both appionted as
~
Assistant Teachers in an Intermediate College with effect from July 8,
1967. Respondent No. 1 was promoted by the management as•.Lecturer E
in Hindi on an ad hoc basis with effect from March 1, 1976. The District
.... Inspector of Schools approved of it on October 5, 1976. Subsequently
on November 20, 1976 he again made an order promoting both the
appellant and respondent No. 1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respec-
lively on an ad hoc basis. Their services came to be regularised by

r
virtue of the new provision. s. 16 GG, with effect from April 21, 1977. F
After their services were so regularised, dispute arose regarding the
seniority.

While the first respondent claimed seniority over the appellant on
the basis of his appointment/promotion made on March 1, 1976, the
appellant claimed that he being older than the first respondent was G
entitled to be treated as senior by virtue of the second part of clause (b)
4 of regulation 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the Act.

The District Inspector of Schools came to the conclusion that the
fortuitous appointment/promotion of the first respondent on March 1,
1976 could not have any effect on the question of seniority between H
1049
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1988] l S.C.R.

A them, and held that since the appellant and the first respondent had r
been accepted to be promoted in substantive capacity on the same day,
and since the appellant was older than respondent No. 1, the appellant
should be considered as senior by virtue of the second sentence in clause
(b) of regulation 3(1) of the Regulations.
B
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the first respondent filed a
writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed, the order of the }
Disctrict Inspector of Schools was set aside and it was declared that the
first respondent was senior to the appellant on the ground that the first
respondent had been promoted to the post of lecturer on March 1, 1976,
pursuant to certain orders issued under the Act which continued to be )
c in operation until section 16GG was brought into force. ~ ~

Allowing the appeal by Special Leave.

HELD: 1. Th~ appellant is senior to the first respondent. [I056E]
D
2.1 What is crucial for the purposes of the case is the date from
which the appellant and the first respondent should be deemed to be
holding their posts in substantive capacity. Section 16GG of the Act
clearly lays down that any teacher whose services are regularised
should be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity with
E effect from the date of its commencement. It does any say that the
services of such teachers should be deemed to have been regularised
with effect from the date from which they were continuously officiating
in the post in question. The date of commencement of the section being
April, 21, 1977 both the appellant and the first respondent, who were
by then holding the I!.osts of Lecturers on an ad hoc basis are to be
F deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity on the same
date, that is, April 21, 1977. [IOSSG-H; 1056A]

2.2 On the question of seniority, cl. (b) of Regulation (3)(1) of the
Regulations provides that the seniority of teachers in a grade shall be
determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade
1
G and if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date seniorty
should be determined on the basis of age. [I056C]

In the instant case, the appellant is older in age than the
first respondent. He should, therefore, be treated as senior to the
first respondent by reason of the second sentence in cl. (b) of Regula-
H tions 3(1). [1056E-F]
SUDAMA SINGH v. NATI! SARAN SINGH (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1051

3. The High Court omitted to consider the effect on the words
A
'with effect from the date of the commencement of this section' in sub-
s. (1) of s. 16GG of the Act and also sub-s. (2) of that section which
provides that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a sub-
stantive capacity un~er sub-s.(1) should be deemed to be on probation
from the date of the commencement of the section. [1056B·C]
B
-{ CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3004
of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1986 of the Allahabad
High Court in C.M.W.A. No. 9895 of 1985.

R.K. Jain and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Appellant. c
B.D. Agarwal, L.R. Singh and Pradeep Misra for the Respon-
dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

VENKATARAMIAH, J. Special leave granted. The appeal is
heard.

The appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent No. 1, Nath
Saran Singh, were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade E
in the Gandhi Inter College, Chilkahar, District Ballia with effect from
the same d·ate, i.e., July 8, 1967 and were placed on probation for orte
year. Respondent No. 1 was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc
basis with effect from March 1, 1976 by the Committee of Manage-
ment and this action of the Committee of Management received the
approval of the District Inspector of Schools on October 5, 1976. On F
November 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an
order promoting both the appellant and Respondent No. 1 as
Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively. The promotions, referred
to above, had been made on an ad hoc basis. Likewise a large number
of teachers, who were working in the educational institutions which
were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, G
1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been appointed or
promoted on an ad hoc basis and the question of regularisation of their
services was engaging the attention of the State Government during
the relevant time. As a consequence of the decision of the State
Government an ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws
Amendment Ordinance, 1977 (U.P. Ordinance No. 5 of 1977) was pro- H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) I S.C.R.

mulgated on April 21, 1917. By the said Ordinance a large number of t'
A provisions in four of the laws in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh
concerning education were amended. One of the laws which was
amended by the said Ordinance was the Act. By the Ordinance a new
provision, namely, section 16GG was introduced into the Act. The
Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws
B Amendment Act, 1977. Section 16GG, which was introduced into the
Act by the Ordinance, was allowed to remain in operation by the Uttar }-
Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977. The relevant part of
section 16GG of the Act reads as follows:- "lOo

"16GG, Regularization of appointment of ad hoc I
teachers-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec- -~- ·
c tions 16E, 16F and 16FF every teacher of an institution
appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30,
1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear
vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having
been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with
D the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of
commencement of this Section, be deemed to have been
appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher
has been continuously serving the institution from the date
of his appointment up to the commencement of this ~-
section.
E

(2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in
a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be
deemed to be on probation from the date of commence-
ment of this section. ·
F
(underlining by us)

Section 16GG of the Act, which is reproduced above, provided
that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 16E, 16F and
16FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18,
G 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis
against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or
having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the ~,,..
provisions of the Act, should, with effect from the date of commence-
ment of the said section, be deemed to have been appointed in a
substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously
H serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the
SUDAMA SINGH v. NATH SARAN SINGH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1053

commencement of the said section. Sub-section (2) of section 16GG of A
the Act provided that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in
a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) should be deemed to be on
probation from the date of commencement of the section.

The services of the appellant and the 1st respondent, who were
working as teachers on ad hoc basis during the relevant period, also B
came to be regularised by virtue of section 16GG of the Act. After
their services were so regularised dispute arose regarding the seniority
between them. The question of seniority between two or more
teachers working in an institution governed by the Act is governed by
regulation 3 in Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Act, the
relevant part of which reads thus:-
c
"3(1). The Committee of Management of every institution
shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in
accordance with the following provisions:-

(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for D
each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary,
on any substantive post;

(b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be deter-
mined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that
grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the E
same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of
age; ............................................... ''

While the 1st respondent claimed seniqrity over the appellant on
the basis of his appointment or promotion made on March 1, 1976, the
]..,_.. appellant claimed that he being older than the 1st respondent was F
r entitled to be treated as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the
second part of clause (b) of regulation 3(1) of the Regulations framed
under the Act which provided that if two or more teachers were so
appointed on the same date, seniority should be determined on the
basis ofage.
G
The above dispute regarding the seniority between the appellant
and the 1st respondent was first considered by the District Inspector of
Schools, Ballia. After considering the history of the services of these
tw9 teachers, the District Inspector of Schools came to the conclusion
that the fortuitous appointment or promotion of the 1st respondent on

•
1.3.1976 could not have any effect on the question of seniority bet- H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

A ween the appellant and the !st respondent. He further observed that t"
the promotions of the appellant and the 1st respondent had actually
been made as per his Jetter dated November 20, 1976 which read as
under:-

"Office of the District
Inspector of Schools, Ballia

Order No. 15993-94176176

Date 20.11.76.

c PROMOTION

Following Assistant Teachers of L.T. Grade are
promoted to the Lecturer's Grade on the posts mentioned
against their names. Promotions have been made under
Para 5 of Regulations No. Secondary/5183/15/7/76/2(18)75
D Lucknow date. 7.7.76 made for the appointment of Prittci-
pals for Govt. aided Private Secondary Schools.

SI. Teacher's Pay Promotion Post Remarks
No. Name Scale in the Lecturer y'
pay scale
E
I. Sh. Nath L.T.
Saran Singh Rs.300-550
Rs.400-750 Lecturer
Hindi
On the post
vacated by Order
No. Ordinance
1849/65\dt.
7.2.76issued
by Director
--
F of Education,
U.P., -~
Allahabad

2. Sh. Sudama L.T. Rs.400-750 Lecturer
Singh Rs.300-550 Civics

G Sd '- Illegible
Tutsi Ram Jatar
D.1.0.S. Ballia"
r ~

He further observed that since the appellant and the !st res-
pondent had been accepted 'to be promoted in substantive capacity
H vide letter dated 20.11.1976 issued by the District Inspector of
SUDAMA SINGH v. NATI! SARAN SINGH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 1055

-1 Schools, i.e., on the same date and since the appellant, whose date of
A
birth was 1.4.1937 was older than Respondent No. 1, whose date of
birth was 1. 7.1942, the appellant should be considered as senior to the
1st respondent by virtue of the second sentence in clause (b) of regula-
tion 3( 1) of the Regulations made under the Act. The above decision
of the District Inspector of Schools was conveyed to the parties by his
Letter No. 2858-60/85-86 dated 13.6.1985. Aggrieved by the decision B
1 of the District Inspector of Schools, the 1st respondent filed a writ
petition in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9895 of 1985 before
..: the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Judge, who heard the writ
petition, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Dis-

-1 trict Inspector of Schools and declared that the 1st respondent was
senior to the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent had been
promoted to the post of Lecturer on March 1, 1976 pursuant to certain
c
orders which had been issued under the Act and which continued to be
in operation until section 16GG brought into force. This appeal by
special leave is filed by the appellant against the decision of the High
Court.
D
It is not disputed that until section 16GG of the Act came into
effect the appellant and the 1st respondent were both functioning on
an ad hoc basis as teachers and it was only by virtue of section 16GG of
the. Act that they came to be appointed as teachers in substantive
'~ capacity. Section 16GG of the Act came into effect from 21.4.1977. It
provided that lhe teachers who were working on an ad hoc basis bet- E
ween August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive)
against clear vacancies and possessing prescribed qualifications should
'with effect from the date of commencement of this section' be deemed
to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher
had been continuously serving the institution from the date of his

r- appointment upto the commencement of this section. There is. no dis- F
pute that both the appellant and the 1st respondent satisfied the condi-
tions prescribed by section 16GG of the Act for regularising their
appointment in a substantive capacity but what is crucial for purposes
of this case is the date from which the appellant and the 1st respondent
should be deemed to be holding their posts in a substantive capacity.
Section 16GG of the Act clearly lays down that any teacher whose G
services are regularised should be deemed to have been appointed in a
· substantive capacity with effect from the date of the commence.men! of
---1 that section. It does not say that the services of such teachers should be
deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date from which
f they were continuously officiating in the posts in question. The date of
commencement of the section in the instant case being 21.4.1977 it H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

A should be held that both the appellant and the 1st respondent, who !""
were by then holding the posts of Lecturers on an ad hoc basis were
appointed in a substantive capacity of the same date, i.e., 21.4.1977.
The High Court omitted to consider the effect of the words 'with effect
from the date of the commencement of this section' in sub-section (1)
B of section 16GG of the Act and also sub-section (2) of that section
which provided that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a
substantive capacity under sub-section (1) should be deemed to be on }-
probation from the date of the commencement of the section. On the
question of seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent ,.
clause (b) of regulation 3( 1) of the Regulations made under the Act, as

c
already stated, provides that the seniority of teachers in a grade shall
be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that
grade and if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date
.+_
seniority should be determined on the basis of age. Since it is admitted
that both the appellant and the 1st respondent had been appointed in a
substantive capacity by virtue of section 16GG of the Act they must be
0 deemed to be holding their respective posts in the substantive capacity
only from 21.4.1977 on which date section 16GG of the Act came into
force. Both of them should be deemed to be on probation from
21.4.1977 [Vide section 16GG(2)l. Any earlier appointment or promo-
ti on on an ad hoc basis has no bearing on the question of seniority. The
appellant and the 1st respondent should be deemed to have been
appointed on a substantive basis on the same date for purpose of
.,.,
E
seniority and, therefore, the appellant, who is older than the 1st
respondent, should be treated as senior to the !st respondent by
reason of the second sentence \n clause (b) of regulation 3(1) of the
Regulations framed under the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that
the High Court erred in declaring that the 1st respondent was senior to
the appellant on the basis of the fortuitous promotion of the 1st
F
respondent said to have been made on March 1, 1976. The Judgment
of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the decision ,-~
of the District Inspector of Schools has to be restored.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
G High Court and make a declaration that the appellant is senior to the
1st respondent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed.

I
t