Illegal Appointment in College: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Ruling on Lecturer’s Salary Claim

The case of Krishna Nand Shukla v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad & Ors. revolves around the appointment of a lecturer in a private college and the subsequent claim for salary under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated March 6, 2019, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s ruling and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the necessity of following proper appointment procedures.

This judgment highlights the critical importance of due process in academic appointments and the conditions under which salary claims can be entertained under university regulations.

Case Background

The appellant, Krishna Nand Shukla, claimed that he was appointed on August 2, 1991, by the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College, which is affiliated with Gorakhpur University. He alleged that his appointment was made through an advertisement published on June 22, 1991, in the Hindi daily Dainik. Based on a selection process, the college issued his appointment order, which was later approved on an ad hoc basis by the University.

The university’s approval was valid for six months or until a regular teacher was appointed by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission. However, despite this temporary approval, the appellant continued to claim salary from the college.

In 1996, a post of Lecturer in Military Science was officially created in the college. The appellant claimed that he was eligible for this post and continued to serve as a Lecturer in Military Science. However, his salary payments were stopped in April 1998 due to disputes within the college management.

Seeking relief, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the state to pay his salary and regularize his appointment.

High Court’s Decision

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on October 6, 2015, relying on the state’s argument that:

The appellant’s appointment was never made through a proper selection process.
There was no approved post of Lecturer in Military Science at the time of his alleged appointment in 1991.
Under Sections 60E and 60A(vi) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the state had no liability to pay salary for an appointment that was not legally recognized.
The appointment made without advertisement was void ab initio.

The appellant filed a review petition before the High Court, but it was summarily dismissed on March 9, 2016. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Advocate Vishwajit Singh, argued:

The High Court erred in relying on incorrect paragraphs from a counter-affidavit that was not part of his case record.
His appointment was made after a proper selection process and was initially approved by the university.
He had been working for over two decades, and denying his salary was unjust.
His salary payments were made from 1991 to 1998, proving that his employment was legitimate.
His separate writ petition for regularization (W.P. No. 1704(SB) of 2013) was still pending and should be considered in light of this case.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, represented by the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad, countered:

The appellant’s appointment was not made according to the prescribed selection procedure.
The official post of Lecturer in Military Science was created only in 1996, five years after the appellant claimed to have been appointed.
The appellant’s salary claim was baseless since his appointment was neither regular nor legally approved.
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition based on the legal provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court found serious procedural errors in the High Court’s ruling. The Court noted that:

“The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, relied on paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit that did not exist in the appellant’s case record.”

The Court expressed concern over this fundamental mistake:

“The paragraphs referred to in the High Court’s judgment belonged to a different writ petition (W.P. No. 29474 of 1999) and not the one filed by the appellant.”

The Supreme Court further criticized the High Court for failing to consider the appellant’s detailed review petition, which had highlighted this error:

“The review application was dismissed without even addressing the main ground that incorrect pleadings were relied upon in dismissing the writ petition.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled:

Set aside the High Court’s judgment dated October 6, 2015.
Set aside the High Court’s order rejecting the review petition on March 9, 2016.
Remanded the case to the Allahabad High Court for a fresh decision based on the actual pleadings in the appellant’s case.
Clarified that it had not ruled on the merits of the salary claim, which must be decided by the High Court.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the necessity of procedural accuracy in judicial decisions. The key takeaways are:

Courts must rely on correct pleadings when adjudicating cases, especially in service matters.
Appointments made without following due process cannot create a legal right to salary.
High Courts must consider review petitions on valid legal grounds and not reject them summarily.
Matters of regularization should be decided separately in accordance with statutory provisions.

By remanding the case to the High Court, the Supreme Court ensured that the appellant’s claims would be adjudicated fairly and based on the correct legal record.

Petitioner Name: Krishna Nand Shukla.
Respondent Name: Director of Higher Education, Allahabad & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 06-03-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Krishna Nand Shukla vs Director of Higher E Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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