K P SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-2000 passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 792 of 1993. The said o. A. was filed by the petitioner to assail the order dated 25-2-1993 (Annexure p-2), whereby petitioner's service as Lecturer in Law stood terminated w. e. f. 16-12-1992.

(2.) RELEVANT facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner was given an ad-hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer in Law by the Principal, Government K. P. College, dewas vide order dated 27-8-1980. Said ad-hoc appointment continued with short intermittent breaks. Vide order dated 28-4-1984, petitioner was once again given ad-hoc appointment, on the strength of which petitioner continued in service as ad-hoc Lecturer in Law. Petitioner came forward with the case that abruptly, the Principal of the College terminated his service w. e. f. 16-12-1992. Petitioner, therefore, filed the original application for reinstatement in service and for payment of entire arrears of salary. After service of notice, respondents filed reply and opposed the original application of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal, after hearing learned Counsel for applicant and State Government found no merit and substance in the original application, accordingly dismissed the same. Learned Tribunal found that as the petitioner was not holding a regular appointment on the post of Lecturer in terms of M. P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to "1967 Rules" for short) but was having only an ad-hoc appointment on 31-3-1986, therefore his case was considered under m. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1986, framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Tribunal also found that like many ineligible ad-hoc appointees, petitioner also lacked in the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, therefore, State Government offered two options to petitioner, viz. (1) accept appointment in the School Education Branch and obtain requisite qualification within four years to have review of the case for appointment on the Post of Assistant Professor in the Collegiate Branch, or (2) continue to work as assistant Professor and obtain the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor, Law by 30-10-1992 failing which ad-hoc appointment would come to an end automatically w. e. f. 16-11-1992. Since petitioner opted for the second option but failed to acquire the prescribed qualification within four years' period. Tribunal found no illegality in the action taken by the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to work any further. Accordingly, Tribunal dismissed the original application but directed respondents to pay the salary for the period during which petitioner had actually worked beyond 16-11-1992.