Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 05-12-2017 in case of petitioner name Committee of Management vs The Director of Higher Educati
| |

Regularization of Part-Time Lecturers: Analysis of Committee of Management vs. Director of Higher Education Judgment

The case of Committee of Management vs. Director of Higher Education deals with the appointment and regularization of part-time lecturers in higher educational institutions. The judgment clarifies whether part-time lecturers can claim the benefits of regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.

Background of the Case

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether three individuals—Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra, and Dr. Bachau Prasad Pathak—were appointed as ad hoc lecturers at Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad. The Court found that they were not appointed through proper procedures and ruled against their claim for regularization.

Facts of the Case

  • On January 12, 1988, the college issued an advertisement for the appointment of lecturers on an ad hoc basis.
  • The respondents did not apply as per the advertisement but later submitted separate applications between August 1988 and December 1989, requesting appointment as part-time lecturers.
  • The college accepted their applications and appointed them as part-time lecturers for a fixed period of three months with a fixed salary.
  • They continued in this position until April 1990, after which they were not engaged further.

Legal Proceedings

After their tenure ended, the respondents filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, claiming they were ad hoc lecturers and entitled to regular salaries.

The college opposed this claim, stating:

  • The respondents were not appointed through a proper advertisement.
  • They were only part-time lecturers, not ad hoc appointees.
  • They had not worked beyond April 1990.

High Court’s Ruling

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, directing the Directorate of Higher Education to ensure payment of outstanding salaries as ad hoc lecturers. It also directed the college to consider their regularization.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court reviewed the facts and held that:

  • The respondents did not apply per the January 12, 1988, advertisement.
  • They were appointed on a part-time basis and not as ad hoc lecturers.
  • There was no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act for the regularization of part-time lecturers.
  • No evidence suggested that the respondents worked beyond April 1990.

The Court referred to Section 16 and Section 31-C of the Act, which outline the appointment and regularization process for ad hoc lecturers. The provisions do not apply to part-time lecturers.

Key Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court made the following important remarks:

“There is absolutely no question of the respondents having been appointed on an ad hoc basis or on any basis other than part-time or pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January, 1988. The High Court completely overlooked this aspect of the matter.”

“The respondents had absolutely no right in their favor and the only option available to the High Court was to have dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents and to have allowed the writ petition filed by the College and set aside the order dated 26th February, 2001 regularizing the services of the respondents.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and ruled that:

  • The respondents were only part-time lecturers and not ad hoc lecturers.
  • They did not work beyond April 1990.
  • They had no legal right to claim regularization as lecturers.
  • Their claims for regularization were invalid.

Judgment delivered by: Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Committee of Managem vs The Director of High Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts