1997 (3) TMI 648 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Regularization of ad hoc teacher's services under U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982.
2. Interpretation of Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
3. Continuation of service and entitlement to benefits post-termination.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to the regularization of an ad hoc teacher's services under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. The respondent, appointed on July 1, 1986, had his services terminated on May 30, 1988, which led to a legal challenge. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the respondent's services were regularized pending the writ petition, entitling him to continue in service. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the regularizing order was subject to further review by the competent authority in accordance with the law, forming the basis of the appeal.

The main issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. This section deals with the regulation of candidates appointed against short-term vacancies before a specified date. The Court analyzed whether the respondent met the criteria for regularization under this provision. It was observed that the respondent's service termination on June 30, 1988, and subsequent continuation under a stay order did not automatically qualify him for regularization under the Act. The Court scrutinized the circumstances of the respondent's service termination and subsequent continuation to determine his entitlement to the benefits under the Act.

The Court further delved into the aspect of the respondent's continuation of service and entitlement to benefits post-termination. It was noted that the regularizing order issued by the District Inspector of Schools was contingent upon the outcome of the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the respondent's regularizing order itself was subject to the writ petition's result, indicating that the Division Bench's direction for further review was unnecessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the writ petition, and waived costs, while suggesting appropriate relaxation of age bar for further appointments in compliance with the rules.