2021 (9) TMI 483 - SC - Indian Laws

Ad hoc teacher appointed on sanctioned post under 1983 Rules: denial of regularization under 2001 Rules overturned, benefits ordered.

Where an ad hoc teacher was appointed by the prescribed appointing authority under the 1983 Service Rules, against a sanctioned post, and possessed the ... Irregular versus illegal appointment - exception to non-regularization in Umadevi (10 years in duly sanctioned post without interim protection) - effect of finality and res judicata of inter partes judgments - regularization of ad hoc/temporary incumbentsIrregular versus illegal appointment - Nature of the appellant's initial appointment - whether irregular or illegal. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the appellant was appointed by the prescribed appointing authority on a sanctioned post and possessed the prescribed qualifications. Applying the tests in M.L. Kesari, the appointment must be classified as irregular and not illegal because the appointment was to a sanctioned post and the incumbent had requisite qualifications, notwithstanding selection without open competitive process. The Division Bench's contrary finding that the appointment was illegal is unsustainable. [Paras 23, 24]Appointment held to be irregular and not illegal.Exception to non-regularization in Umadevi (10 years in duly sanctioned post without interim protection) - Whether the appellant is disentitled to regularization because she continued in service under an interim order. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined paragraph 53 of Umadevi(3) and the exception carved out therein, which requires (i) ten years' continuous service in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of any interim order, and (ii) that the appointment be not illegal. The Court held that the appellant satisfied the second condition (appointment irregular but not illegal) and the ten-year threshold, and further observed that the earlier High Court judgment of 23.01.2006 crystallized the appellant's right and attained finality. The fact that the earlier judgment was passed before Umadevi(3) does not oblige re-opening or denial of rights inter partes merely because subsequent precedent alters the general principle. [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 30]Appellant's continuation under the interim order did not disentitle her from regularization in the facts - her case falls within the exception's ambit as applied with regard to the final, unchallenged earlier judgment.Effect of finality and res judicata of inter partes judgments - Whether the Division Bench could, in collateral proceedings, set aside or ignore the effect of the earlier High Court judgment which had attained finality between the parties. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the Division Bench improperly proceeded as if reappraising the earlier final judgment of the same High Court. A judgment which has attained finality inter partes cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings; principles of res judicata and finality preclude collateral attack. The Court relied on established authorities to observe that final adjudication between parties cannot be set aside except by the modes recognized by law and that later decisions overruling a principle do not nullify an inter partes final judgment. [Paras 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]Division Bench's allowance of the Special Appeal as a collateral challenge to an earlier final judgment was impermissible; the earlier judgment remained binding inter partes.Regularization of ad hoc/temporary incumbents - Whether the appellant is entitled to regularization and consequential relief. - HELD THAT: - Having found the appointment irregular (not illegal), and having held that the earlier High Court judgment in favour of the appellant attained finality and crystallized her right, the Court concluded that refusal to regularize was unlawful. The respondents had already regularized the appellant in compliance with the 2014 Single Judge order subject to LPA, and the Supreme Court directed final implementation: the appellant is entitled to regularization with consequential benefits within a specified period. [Paras 13, 27, 37, 39]Appellant entitled to be regularized; respondents directed to effect regularization with consequential benefits within three months.Final Conclusion: The impugned Division Bench judgment is set aside; the appellant's appointment is held to be irregular (not illegal), the earlier unchallenged High Court judgment crystallizing her right is binding inter partes, and the appellant is entitled to regularization with consequential benefits to be granted within three months. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appellant's temporary appointment.2. Applicability of Regularization Rules, 2001 to the appellant.3. Legality of the appellant's continued employment under interim court orders.4. Finality and binding nature of previous court judgments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the appellant's temporary appointment:The appellant was initially appointed as an Assistant Music Teacher on a temporary basis in 1984 to fill a leave vacancy. The terms of her appointment were later modified to end either when the incumbent returned or by a specified date. The appellant challenged this modification in court, and an interim order allowed her to continue until the permanent incumbent returned, which never happened. The court noted that her qualifications met the prescribed requirements, and she continued in her role until 2020 without interruption.2. Applicability of Regularization Rules, 2001 to the appellant:The appellant sought regularization under the UP Secondary Education Department Regularization of Ad hoc appointments on the Post of Trained Graduate Teachers Rules, 2001. The High Court initially ruled in her favor, stating she had acquired a right to hold the post due to her continuous satisfactory service. Despite this, the Joint Director of Education rejected her regularization, arguing that her initial appointment on a leave vacancy did not qualify under the 2001 Rules. However, the Supreme Court found that her appointment was irregular, not illegal, and she met the criteria for regularization, having worked for over 10 years in a sanctioned post with the necessary qualifications.3. Legality of the appellant's continued employment under interim court orders:The Division Bench of the High Court viewed the appellant's appointment as litigious, continued only due to interim court orders, and thus not enforceable for regularization. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the continuation of her service under interim orders did not disqualify her from regularization, especially since the earlier judgment granting her the right to the post had attained finality and was not challenged.4. Finality and binding nature of previous court judgments:The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's earlier judgment in favor of the appellant, which had become final, crystallized her right to regularization. The Division Bench's attempt to re-evaluate this final judgment was erroneous. The Supreme Court reiterated that judgments which have attained finality cannot be reopened or challenged in collateral proceedings. The appellant's right to regularization, as determined by the earlier court decision, remained binding and enforceable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, reinstating the appellant's right to regularization with all consequential benefits, to be implemented within three months. The court underscored the importance of respecting final judgments and the principles of res judicata and finality in legal proceedings.