End ‘Adhocism’ in Schools of U.P.- Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided a long pending issue of ‘Adhoc Teachers” in Uttar Pradesh vide its Order dated 26.08.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (Sanjay Singh and Ors vs State of U.P. and Others). The Bench of Justice S.K. Kaula and Justice and K.M. Joseph issued slew of directions in exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India to resolve the ‘Mess’ in the Education System of U.P., created on account of adhoc appointment of teachers in Schools


A reference was made before the Lucknow High Court by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014, for resolving the conflict between two Judgments of Single Judges i.e. Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. [(2013) 1 UPLBEC 758] and Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others (Writ A 22520 of 2013). 

In Sanjay Singh case the Single Judge held that, where the Board does not make appointment in the schools regulated by Intermediate Education Act 1921, even after the requisition has been sent by the management, the management shall have power to appoint teachers on adhoc basis and till the regularly selected candidates comes the state shall pay such adhoc teacher’s salary.

On the contrary in the case of Pradeep Kumar, the Single Judge disagreed with the Judgment of Pradeep Kumar case and held that an appointment of teacher after the enforcement of  Section 16 of The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, can be made only on the recommendation of the Board failing which the appointment made would be void and therefore dismissed the Writ Petition.

The controversy again arose in the case of Abhsihek Tripathi vs State of U.P. & others (W.P. No. 655 (S/S) of 2014), with regard to power of management to make ad hoc appointment of teachers in schools governed by Intermediate Education Act. The Single Judge after referring both the Sanjay Singh and Pradeep Kumar Case Judgment referred the issue  before a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

The Division Bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chadrachud and Justice S.N. Shukla after referring to all the relevant provisions and previous Judgments held that Sanjay Singh case does not lay down the correct law and as such the Judgment of Pradeep Kumar case was upheld.

This lead to filing of SLPs before the Supreme Court, which has been decided by the Supreme Court.

Observation of Supreme Court with respect to Education System in U.P.:

  1. The present dispute is a reflection of the mess in the education system where starting from the primary level to the highest level adhocism seems to prevail in the appointment of teachers and lecturers in turn having consequences for the students who need to benefit from the best education process. That has not been so.
  2. We may say at the inception that we are not in disagreement with what has been set out in the impugned judgment but then this Court has the benefit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties and we are taking recourse to this to deal with the mess which is before us i.e. a complete adhocism in the working of the education system whereby TGTs and lecturers have been working for years and decades without a regularization. We do find that everyone is to blame for this scenario as what was an adhoc arrangement never fructified in the proper regularization or by holding examination in which recruitment could take place. If the recruitments did take place, that was periodic in terms of examination held after long period of time.
  3. We end with the hope that we will never be faced with the aforesaid situation again and the State Government and the Commission will also make every endeavour to ensure that the order is complied in its true intent and spirit and specially the aspect of holding examinations for the future taking into consideration all current and future vacancies reported as per rules is followed in times to come. We need not emphasize that education in a very important role performed by a State apart from the area of medical assistance to citizens and thus it is necessary that the full benefit is extended to the students which can only take place if the full strength of teachers is available at the requisite time. This in turn requires compliance with the aforesaid directions for the future.
  4. Since there is always hope, we hope for a better future

Direction of Supreme Court issued under Article 142 of Constitution of India:

  1. All the petitioners/appellants and applicants before us and for that matter all persons eligible under the advertisement will be permitted to appear for one single examination. 
  2. Such of the persons who are successful, would have to go through a process of interview insofar as the post of lecturers is concerned, as we are informed that the post of TGTs the interviews have been dispensed with. 
  3. We are inclined to give some weightage to the persons who have worked as TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. It is respondent No.3-Commission which will have to tweak this aspect and work out giving some weightage to both TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. In the case of TGTs, such weightage will have to form a part of the total marks while in case of the lecturers such weightage can be given in the process of interview. 
  4. The advertisement to be issued should contain the terms of these directions issued by us today. 
  5. We make it clear that the decision as aforesaid will be final of the Commission and no further litigation will be entertained in respect thereof. 
  6. Insofar as the verification of past service is concerned, the concerned teachers/lecturers would give the particulars and details to the Commission 4 for obtaining such weightage and that aspect will be verified by the Commission in consultation with the State Government as we are told that it is the State Government which would have the wherewithal to do the needful. Needless to say that aspect will also be final without any further litigation being entertained in that behalf. 
  7. In view of the weightage given, for the same the examination process can be completed. 
  8. The other aspect is that apart from the weightage, the period which has been verified as having been spent in teaching as adhoc, would be counted for purposes of retiral benefits of the TGTs and Lecturers. 
  9. We consider appropriate that the benefits of past service would be rendered only to such of the persons who have been appointed temporarily in accordance with the provisions of this Section. 
  10. We feel it will be appropriate to direct that the teachers/lecturers who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions, against appointments made in compliance with Section 16-E (subsection 11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/lecturers. 

The Order of Supreme Court is definitely a relief for the adhoc teachers, who were nowhere after the Judgment in the case of Abhishek Tripathi and now the Apex Court has granted one opportunity to get their services regularized and stamped by law.

(Both the Order of Supreme Court and Judgment of High Court are in single pdf)

Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles