STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus DR. S.K. SINHA AND ORS.

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus DR. S.K. SINHA AND ORS.

The first respondent's appointment as a temporary Lecturer against a leave vacancy was valid only until the regular incumbent resumed duty. The Validation Act and Section 31(3)(b) do not apply, as the appointment was neither in excess of advertised posts nor met the conditions for substantive appointment. Continuance in service is not permissible where the regular incumbent returns.

Parties
Appellant: State of U. P.; Respondent No. 1: Dr. S. K. Sinha; Respondent: Respondent No. 6; Respondent: Respondent No. 7; Respondent: Respondent No. 8
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appointment Validation, Temporary Appointment, Leave Vacancy, Statutory Interpretation
Education Law Employment Law Administrative Law Appointment Validation Temporary Appointment Leave Vacancy Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U. P.

Appellant

Dr. S. K. Sinha

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 6

Respondent

Respondent No. 7

Respondent

Respondent No. 8

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the first respondent is validated under Section 2 of the U.P. State University (Validation of Appointments) Act, 1984.
  2. 2 Whether Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 applies to the first respondent’s appointment.
  3. 3 Legality of termination of temporary appointment upon resumption of duty by the regular incumbent.

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's appointment as a temporary Lecturer against a leave vacancy was valid only until the regular incumbent resumed duty. The Validation Act and Section 31(3)(b) do not apply, as the appointment was neither in excess of advertised posts nor met the conditions for substantive appointment. Continuance in service is not permissible where the regular incumbent returns.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The claim of the first respondent for continuance in service is negatived.
  • The State is directed to reimburse payment made by the Management to respondent No. 1.