9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 31B of the U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission Act, 1980. 2. Arbitrary adoption of the cut-off date for regularisation of ad hoc teachers' services. 3. Legality of appointments made after the cut-off date. 4. Comparison with regularisation provisions in other Acts. 5. Functionality of the Commission in relation to fixing the cut-off date. 6. Grant of special leave and considerations for selected candidates. 7. Employment prospects for highly qualified petitioners. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court regarding the constitutional validity of Section 31B of the U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission Act, 1980. The petitioners, ad hoc teachers appointed after January 3, 1984, challenged the cut-off date as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that the date was reasonably connected to the objective of regularising services under Section 31B, following the expiry of relevant Orders. The Court rejected the contention that the date was unjustifiably chosen, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the provision. 2. The Court determined that the appointments made after January 3, 1984, were void as they did not comply with the provisions of the Act. The Management of affiliated colleges lacked the authority to make such ad hoc appointments post the specified date. The Court explained that the cut-off date was essential to prevent indefinite ad hoc appointments and to regularise services under Sections 31A and 31B. The legislative choice of the date was deemed rational and in the public interest. 3. The judgment clarified that the basis for regularisation of ad hoc teachers under Section 31B was the appointments made until January 3, 1984, as they had legal sanction. The Court dismissed the argument that a different pattern should have been adopted, emphasizing the distinct class of ad hoc teachers appointed before the specified date. Comparisons with regularisation provisions in other Acts were deemed irrelevant due to the unique circumstances of the case. 4. Regarding the functionality of the Commission, the Court noted that despite issuing recruitment notifications after the cut-off date, the Commission was operational. The Court highlighted the earlier notifications issued by the Commission to refute claims of non-functionality. The Court rejected the contention that the Commission's functioning affected the validity of the cut-off date under Section 31B. 5. While declining to grant special leave, the Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding their future and unemployment. The Court expressed hope that the State Government would consider the petitioners' qualifications and experience for suitable employment within three months if a representation is made. The Court also extended the stay granted until a specified date. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court's judgment on various issues raised in the case.
|
