Bimla Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1985 DIGILAW 372 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - Under a letter of appointment dated December 1, 1984, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in History in the Government Degree College, Charkhari, District Hamirpur by the Principal of that institution. In the letter it was stated that by way of an interim arrangement the appointment was being made for a period beginning from December 1, 1984 up to March 31, 1985 (afternoon). It was further stated that the appointee shall have no claim for its extension beyond March 31, 1983. Before that date also the appointment could be terminated at any time by giving one month's prior notice. A copy of this letter of appointment was sent to the Director of Education, uttar Pradesh, intimating him that the petitioner had been selected for appointment to the said post. At the bottom of this letter it was stated that the petitioner may be intimated that her appointment would be deemed to have automatically terminated on March 31, 1985. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner claims that her ad hoc appointment was liable to be regularised in view of certain Government orders and consequently a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents not to terminate the petitioner's services at all or, at any rate, until a regular appointment is made against the post. 3. In the petition it has been asserted that appointment to the posts of lecturers in the Government Degree Colleges has to be made through U. P. Public Service Commission. However, for some reason the State Government has not been able to process the recruitment through the U. P. Public Service Commission. Consequently in order to cope with the increasing demand or recruitment of lecturers appointment on ad hoc basis is being made in these Govt. Degree and Postgraduate Colleges. The petitioner was also appointed in a leave vacancy for three months in the Government Girls Degree College, Deoria by the Principal of that college. The said appointment lasted from February 10, 1034 to May 8, 1984. Thereafter it was not renewed. However, on December 1, 1984 the petitioner was selected by he Principal of the Government Degree College, Charkhari, District Hamirpur by means of the aforesaid letter dated December 1, 1984. This appointment, however, as mentioned above, is to come to an end in the afternoon of March 31, 1985. Thereafter it was not renewed. However, on December 1, 1984 the petitioner was selected by he Principal of the Government Degree College, Charkhari, District Hamirpur by means of the aforesaid letter dated December 1, 1984. This appointment, however, as mentioned above, is to come to an end in the afternoon of March 31, 1985. It is asserted that throughout the State teachers are being appointed to these Government colleges for short terms lasting four months and that the respondents are causing artificial breaks in the services of such ad hoc teachers by issuing letters of appointment lasting only four months. Such action of the Government is clearly arbitrary and unauthorised. It is also asserted that in view of the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts with in the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended by the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984, the petitioner's services are entitled to be regularised in any case as the petitioner held an ad hoc appointment on the post of a lecturer since February, 1984, i.e., after the aforesaid amendment in the rules which came into force on March 22, 1984. 4. The aforesaid contentions were reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the arguments before us. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel it will be necessary to examine the precise nature of the petitioner's appointment. Under Article 309 of the Constitution of India certain rules have been framed laying down the powers exercisable by various authorities and offices of the Department of Education. These rules are called the Uttar Pradesh Education Department Administration (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1973. Under these rules the power to appoint (except senior lecturers) in the Government Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges vests in the Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P. However, the principals of the Government Degree and Postgraduate Colleges have been empowered under these rules to grant leave up to a period of four months according to rules and for making local arrangements against such leave vacancies. There is no other power vested in the principals of these colleges of making appointment of lecturers which power, as mentioned above, exclusively vests in the Director of Education. 6. There is no other power vested in the principals of these colleges of making appointment of lecturers which power, as mentioned above, exclusively vests in the Director of Education. 6. It is in the purported exercise of the aforesaid power that the principal has made the appointment if the petitioner on December 1, 1984 lasting up to March 31, 1985- The petitioner has. however, asserted that she has been appointed against a clear vacancy though it is conceded that the appointment was made not by the Director but by the Principal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Principal was authorised to make appointment of a lecturer by way of a local arrangement lasting not beyond four months at a stretch. It may be that if the leave vacancy continues the Principal could continue the local arrangement by making appointment again after the expiry of four months for another four months and so on. 7. It would thus be seen that the appointment of the petitioner was not an ad hoc appointment made by the authority empowered to make it under the rules namely, the Director, but by way of local arrangement the Principal appointed the petitioner for a period of four months with the clear stipulation that the same shall not invest any right in the petitioner to claim permanency or regularisation. The appointment was expressly limited in its duration and was to come automatically to an end on March 31, 1985. 8. This being the nature of the petitioner's appointment the question which falls for determination is whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and its subsequent amendment by the rules which came into force on March 22, 1984. 9. The 1979 rules provide that any person who was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the commencement of these rules (which came into force on May 14, 1979) and has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years' continuous service, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy. Rule 8 of these Rules provides that the service of a person appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable shall be terminated and on such termination he shall be entitled to receive one month's pay. By the 1984 amendment in these rules, a sub-rule (9) was added to the 1979 rules reading as follows : "The provisions of these rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and continue (sic) in service as such as (sic) the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts (sic) service) Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984 " 10. In our opinion, the petitioner can derive no benefit from the aforesaid Rules. These Rules, in our view, postulate existence of ad hoc appointment made by an authority which is empowered by statute to make those appointments. They have no application, in our considered view, to appointment made by way of a local arrangement by authorises which are not authorised to make regular or temporary appointments. It is significant that the statutory rules, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Education Department Administration (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1973 when dealing with the powers of Principals in relation to lecturers have not used the expression appointment' when authorising them to make arrangement consequent upon the grant of leave up to four months. The words used are that the principals can make arrangement consequent upon grant of leave in the case of lecturers and others up to a period of four months. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the principals have under the said Rules been authorised to make appointment of clerks, laboratory assistants, assistant librarians, etc. and in relation to these employees the statutory rules have used the term appointment' bid in regard to assistant professors and lecturers, etc. the power granted to the Principal is only for making arrangement consequent upon grant of leave according to rules up to a period of four months. 11. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the appointments which are made by Principals by way of arrangement under Cl. (3) of the aforesaid 1973 Rules cannot be elevated to the status of ad hoc appointments properly so called as envisaged under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Rules mentioned above. The petitioner cannot hence seek any support from those Rules. (3) of the aforesaid 1973 Rules cannot be elevated to the status of ad hoc appointments properly so called as envisaged under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Rules mentioned above. The petitioner cannot hence seek any support from those Rules. 12. There is another reason why the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the aforesaid Regularisation Rules. Against the post in regard to which the petitioner has claimed the relief of regularisation and right to continue until a regular appointment is made, the petitioner was appointed only in December, 1984 i.e., after the coming into force of the 1984 Rules which protect ad hoc. appointments made prior to May 1, 1983 and continuing up to the date of the enforcement of the Rules, i.e., March 22, 1984. The petitioner has not claimed any right in regard to his earlier appointment made at Deoria which came to an end in May 1984. After May 1984 there was a break and the petitioner was appointed to the new post at Hamirpur only in December, 1984. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not claimed any relief of regularisation in regard to his appointment at Deoria. 13. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been regularised under aforesaid Rules. 14. We next turn to the other submission of learned counsel which was that in any case the petitioner has a right to continue till a regular appointment is made through the Public Service Commission against the post. We arc unable to agree. Learned counsel for the petitioner was entirely unable to point out any statutory provision under which the petitioner could claim as of right to continue to hold the post in question till a regular appointment is made. We have already commented on the nature of the appointment held by the petitioner and have found that the petitioner's appointment is based entirely on the local arrangement made by the Principal in the exercise of his powers under the 1973 Rules mentioned above The petitioner can hence continue to hold the post so long as the local arrangement (or arrangements) which the Principal may make in regard to the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed, lasts. 15. 15. So far as, therefore, the statutory provisions go there is no basis for contending that the petitioner has acquired some kind of indefeasible right to continue till a regular appointment is made by virtue merely of having been appointed by the Principal for a period of four months. We cannot hence issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to continue till a regular appointment is made through the Public Service Commission. 16. However, it is apparent that the petitioner has been selected for appointment against a clear vacancy on the basis of her academic qualifications and if the vacancy continues she would certainly be entitled to be considered for being appointed against the successive arrangements which the Principal may have to make by granting to her appointment for four months each time unless her work and conduct is found to be unsatisfactory. Further, if the vacancy is clear and it continues the Principal ought not to create artificial breaks by unwarrantedly allowing a gap to intervene between successive renewals of the term of the incumbent, otherwise he will immediately lay himself open to the charge of arbitrariness and unfairness leading to the inference that the power vested in him is being abused to the detriment of the incumbent. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India embodies a rule of wider application and binds the Government and all corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities of the Government in the grant of jobs, Government contracts and issue of quotas and licences, etc. The administrative authority is bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it for others. Their Lordships ruled that, the activities of the Government have a public element and every action of the Government must be informed with reason and be free from arbitrariness. Their Lordships observed (at pp. The administrative authority is bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it for others. Their Lordships ruled that, the activities of the Government have a public element and every action of the Government must be informed with reason and be free from arbitrariness. Their Lordships observed (at pp. 1637-38 of AIR):- "It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must he in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory". 17. That being the approach spelled out by the Supreme Court it must follow that the petitioner who was duly selected by the Principal for appointment against the post by way of an arrangement must be considered for appointment each time the Principal makes an appointment by way of a local arrangement unless the Principal finds that the work and conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory, though it is apparent that the Principal shall have power to make an appointment only for four months at a stretch in view of the statutory limitation placed on his power. 18. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation or continue in service till a regular appointment is made. But having been selected by the Principal for appointment by way of local arrangement, she is entitled to be considered for being appointed each time the Principal makes local arrangement against the post in question. 19. 18. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation or continue in service till a regular appointment is made. But having been selected by the Principal for appointment by way of local arrangement, she is entitled to be considered for being appointed each time the Principal makes local arrangement against the post in question. 19. Before parting with this case we are constrained to observe that we are increasingly coming across cases with the complaint that instead of making regular appointments to these Government Degree and Post-graduate Colleges through the Public Service Commission, the expedient of stop-gap arrangements consisting of short term appointments lasting four months each time is being resorted to by the Principals of the Colleges thereby keeping the incumbents in suspense. It is time that this sort of ad hocism, is put an end to sooner than later. We, therefore,t hope that the Government shall take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies by making regular appointments through the Public Service Commission. A copy of the judgment may, therefore, be, sent to the Secretary, Department of Education, U- P. by the Registrar of the Court. 20. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed save to the extent that the petitioner's case shall be considered by the Principal each time the arrangement for filling up the post is being renewed by him. The State Government may on its part take immediate steps for processing the appointments in the Government Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges through the Public Service Commission. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.