1984 (7) TMI 397 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinances, 1978.
2. Validity of the termination of services of teachers following the Allahabad High Court judgment.
3. Reliefs entitled to the appellants and petitioners.

Summary:

Constitutional Validity of the Ordinances:
The principal question for determination was the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances: the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978) and its successor, the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978). The Allahabad High Court had struck down these ordinances on the grounds that they violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the reserve pool teachers formed a separate and distinct class from other applicants for the posts of teachers in recognized institutions. The differentia which distinguished the reserve pool teachers from other applicants was the service rendered by them to the State and its educational system in a time of crisis. This differentia bore a reasonable and rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Ordinances, which was to keep the educational system functioning smoothly without interruption. Therefore, neither Article 14 nor Article 16(1) was violated by the provisions of either U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978 or U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978.

Validity of Termination of Services:
The High Court's judgment led to the termination of the services of the reserve pool teachers. The Supreme Court held that the termination of the services of these teachers following the High Court's judgment was contrary to law. The orders dated May 21, 1979, by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and May 29, 1979, by the Additional Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, were also bad in law. The reserve pool teachers who had already been appointed and were continuing in service by reason of stay orders were entitled to continue in service and to be confirmed in their posts.

Reliefs Entitled:
The Supreme Court directed that each of the reserve pool teachers who had already been appointed and was continuing in service by reason of the stay orders was entitled to continue in service and to be confirmed in their posts. The remaining teachers in the reserve pool were directed to be appointed to substantive vacancies in recognized institutions as and when each such vacancy occurred. This direction applied to those reserve pool teachers whose services were terminated and who had not filed any writ petition or had not succeeded in obtaining a stay order, as well as to those who had not been appointed due to the interim orders passed by the High Court and the judgment in the Sangh's case.

Conclusion:
1. The High Court should not have proceeded without the reserve pool teachers being made respondents.
2. A writ of certiorari cannot be issued to declare an Act or Ordinance unconstitutional.
3. The reserve pool teachers formed a distinct class, and their preferential treatment did not violate Articles 14 and 16(1).
4. The termination of their services was contrary to law, and they were entitled to be confirmed in their posts.
5. The remaining reserve pool teachers should be appointed to substantive vacancies as they occur.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and writ petitions, reversing the High Court's judgment and setting aside the termination orders. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.