SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.

Appellant's initial ad-hoc appointment as lecturer was wholly without jurisdiction as he lacked minimum statutory qualifications and statutory conditions for ad-hoc appointment were not satisfied; subsequent regularisations cannot cure the defect. Appellant was not entitled to regularisation under Sections 31-B or 31-C, nor did order of termination become void due to lack of approval by Vice-Chancellor.

Parties
Appellant: Santosh Kumar Singh; Respondent: The State of U.P. & Ors.; Respondent: Committee of Management of College
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Ad Hoc Appointments, Minimum Qualification for Lecturers, Regularisation of Service, Termination of Service
Service Law Education Law Ad Hoc Appointments Minimum Qualification for Lecturers Regularisation of Service Termination of Service

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santosh Kumar Singh

Appellant

The State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent

Committee of Management of College

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the selection committee could relax minimum qualifications for ad-hoc appointment of lecturer
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's appointment and subsequent regularisation was valid under relevant statutes
  3. 3 Effect of non-approval by Vice-Chancellor on order of termination

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant's initial ad-hoc appointment as lecturer was wholly without jurisdiction as he lacked minimum statutory qualifications and statutory conditions for ad-hoc appointment were not satisfied; subsequent regularisations cannot cure the defect. Appellant was not entitled to regularisation under Sections 31-B or 31-C, nor did order of termination become void due to lack of approval by Vice-Chancellor.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No right of regularisation conferred; no appointment ordered; appellant may be considered sympathetically for fresh appointment in relaxation of age if suitable and vacancy exists.
  • No order as to costs.