MUNISHWAR DUTT PANDEY versus RAMJEET TIWARI AND ORS.

MUNISHWAR DUTT PANDEY versus RAMJEET TIWARI AND ORS.

As all five statutory conditions under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) were satisfied by the appellant, his ad hoc promotion as Principal was regularised with effect from 6th April 1991, leaving no vacancy for the respondent to be appointed to. Consequently, the Board's subsequent selection process became inoperative as no vacancy existed after that date.

Parties
Appellant: Munishwar Dutt Pandey; Respondent: Ramjeet Tiwari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Division Bench of High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment, Interpretation of Statutes, Seniority and Promotion in Educational Institutions
Education Law Administrative Law Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Interpretation of Statutes Seniority and Promotion in Educational Institutions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munishwar Dutt Pandey

Appellant

Ramjeet Tiwari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Division Bench of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's ad hoc appointment as Principal was regularised under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
  2. 2 Whether the substituted paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, applies to the appellant's appointment.
  3. 3 Whether Section 18 of the Act was applicable to the appellant's appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

As all five statutory conditions under Section 33-A(1)(1-A) were satisfied by the appellant, his ad hoc promotion as Principal was regularised with effect from 6th April 1991, leaving no vacancy for the respondent to be appointed to. Consequently, the Board's subsequent selection process became inoperative as no vacancy existed after that date.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside.
  • The order of the Single Judge dated 7th September 1992 is restored.