2007 (5) TMI 678 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Regularization of ad hoc teachers.
2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's order dated 06.12.1989.
3. Creation and identification of sanctioned posts.
4. Validity of appointments made by the committee constituted by the High Court.
5. Adherence to statutory provisions and qualifications for the post of lecturers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularization of Ad Hoc Teachers:
The appellants, an association of ad hoc teachers, sought regularization of their services. The Supreme Court had previously directed that ad hoc teachers in service on February 10, 1989, against sanctioned posts, should continue until selections were made by the University Service Commission. The Court also mandated that the Government consider the workload and sanction additional posts if required, which should be filled regularly either by direct recruitment or promotion, not by ad hoc appointments.

2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's Order Dated 06.12.1989:
The Supreme Court's order aimed to address the unsatisfactory situation of repeated ad hoc appointments. The order directed the University Service Commission to advertise posts for direct recruitment, the Government to sanction additional posts based on workload, and relaxation of the maximum age for direct recruitment to account for service rendered as ad hoc teachers. The appellants contended that the order was not complied with, leading to a contempt petition which was later discharged by the Court.

3. Creation and Identification of Sanctioned Posts:
During the pendency of the matter, Magadh University had proposed the creation of 1467 additional posts, including 426 for the appellant university. However, the State of Bihar and the University disputed this, stating only 55 posts were sanctioned. The High Court, through a consent order, constituted a committee to identify vacant posts as of May 30, 1990. The appellants were dissatisfied with this arrangement and sought a review, which was denied.

4. Validity of Appointments Made by the Committee Constituted by the High Court:
The High Court's consent order involved appointing a committee to identify vacant posts, which the appellants argued was beyond the Court's jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions of the Bihar State University Act. They contended that the appointments should have been made by the University Service Commission, a statutory body, and not by a committee of Vice Chancellors.

5. Adherence to Statutory Provisions and Qualifications for the Post of Lecturers:
The Supreme Court emphasized that any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality and statutory provisions would be illegal. The Bihar State University Act mandates that all sanctioned vacant posts be filled by qualified candidates selected by the University Service Commission. The Court noted that the qualifications for lecturers had been updated per University Grants Commission guidelines, and any deviation could risk derecognition of the universities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and interlocutory applications, directing that the respondents consider the cases of all teachers with requisite qualifications, upon relaxation of age if permissible by law, along with other eligible candidates. The Court allowed the State of Bihar and concerned universities to terminate the services of teachers not working against sanctioned posts or those who did not fulfill the requisite qualifications. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and condemned the practice of appointing ad hoc teachers.