Statutory recruitment rules govern university appointments; illegal ad hoc postings cannot be regularised or validated by consent.
Appointments to university teaching posts had to follow the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and the prescribed recruitment process, with sanctioned vacancies as a prerequisite. Ad hoc teachers appointed outside that framework could not claim regularisation or a blanket direction for consideration, because illegal appointments could not be validated contrary to the constitutional scheme of equality in public employment. A consent order of the High Court likewise could not override the statutory recruitment regime or compel appointments forbidden by law. The authorities were, however, directed to consider eligible teachers with requisite qualifications for sanctioned vacancies in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) Whether ad hoc teachers appointed otherwise than in accordance with the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and the statutory recruitment process could seek regularisation or a direction for consideration against vacancies; (ii) whether the consent order passed by the High Court could override the statutory scheme or compel appointments contrary to law.
Issue (i): Whether ad hoc teachers appointed otherwise than in accordance with the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and the statutory recruitment process could seek regularisation or a direction for consideration against vacancies.
Analysis: Recruitment to teaching posts in the Universities had to conform to the statutory scheme. Sanctioned posts were a prerequisite for recruitment, and appointments made dehors the prescribed procedure were held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The constitutional requirement of equality in public employment applied, and the later legal position, including the principle that irregular or illegal appointments could not be regularised contrary to the constitutional scheme, was held to govern the matter. The fact that the teachers had continued in service for a long period, often under court orders, did not justify a direction to bypass the statutory and constitutional requirements or to ignore newly acquired qualifications of other eligible candidates.
Conclusion: The request for regularisation or for a blanket direction to consider all appellants for appointment was rejected; only those with requisite qualifications could be considered in accordance with law against sanctioned vacancies.
Issue (ii): Whether the consent order passed by the High Court could override the statutory scheme or compel appointments contrary to law.
Analysis: A consent order cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists and cannot validate a course forbidden by statute. Although the High Court had, by consent, devised a mechanism to identify vacancies, such consent could not authorise appointments in violation of the statutory recruitment framework or displace the role of the statutory service commission. The Court also declined to reopen disputed questions of fact regarding the exact number of vacancies in the present proceedings.
Conclusion: The consent order could not override the statutory scheme or sustain a direction inconsistent with law.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, but the Court directed that, in filling vacancies, the authorities should consider all eligible teachers with requisite qualifications in accordance with law and remained free to terminate those not working against sanctioned posts or not otherwise qualified.
Ratio Decidendi: Appointments to public posts must conform to the constitutional scheme of equality and the governing statutory recruitment process, and neither prolonged continuance, court orders, nor consent can legitimise illegal appointments or justify regularisation contrary to law.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
