1996 (7) TMI 603 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appointments made by the Management of S.S.V. Inter College, Ghaziabad.
2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 16 and Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982.
3. Relevance and application of the First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.

Summary:

1. Validity of Appointments:
The petitioners joined as L.T. Grade teachers in S.S.V. Inter College, Ghaziabad, claiming that 16 substantive vacancies were advertised and filled by the Management. The District Inspector of Schools queried the procedure, leading to a writ petition which was initially allowed by the High Court. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to ascertain the legality of the appointments. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench concluded that the appointments were not made in accordance with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (the "Act") and the First 1981 Order, rendering them invalid.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 16 and Section 18:
Section 16 of the Act mandates that appointments must be made only on the recommendation of the Commission or the Board, and any appointment in contravention is void. Section 18 allows for ad hoc appointments if the Commission fails to recommend suitable candidates within one year or if the post remains vacant for more than two months. The Supreme Court upheld that the Management's appointments did not comply with these provisions, making them void.

3. Relevance and Application of the First 1981 Order:
The First 1981 Order, which was issued to facilitate ad hoc appointments during the initial non-functioning period of the Commission, prescribes a detailed procedure for such appointments. The Supreme Court affirmed that this Order remains relevant and must be followed for ad hoc appointments under Section 18. The Court emphasized that the Order aims to prevent manipulation and nepotism, ensuring that public interest is safeguarded in the selection process. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court's interpretation that the Order supplements Section 18 was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the special leave petition and dismissed it, affirming that the appointments made by the Management were not in accordance with the law and were therefore void. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 16 and the procedural requirements of the First 1981 Order for ad hoc appointments under Section 18.