Madras High Court
M. Saravanakumar And Ors. vs The Secretary To Govt. Education ... on 15 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)3MLJ538
Author: Markandey Katju
Bench: Markandey Katju, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
JUDGMENT Markandey Katju, C.J.
1. These four writ appeals involve common questions of law, and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record.
3. All the appellants were appointed as Guest Lecturers in various departments in Government Arts/Science/Engineering/Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, and were not appointed in a regular capacity. Their prayer in the writ petitions is that they should be permitted to continue as Guest Lecturers till regular appointments were made on the posts of lecturers.
4. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants it is necessary to state certain background facts. Upto the year 1989 the posts of lecturers, etc. in the Government Arts, Science, Engineering and Law Colleges affiliated to various Universities in Tamil Nadu had been filled in through selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. By G.O.Ms.No.1342, Education dated 22.09.1989 a Teachers Recruitment Board was formed and the selection to teaching posts for all the aforesaid Colleges was entrusted to the Teachers Recruitment Board. The Teachers Recruitment Board consists of a Selection Committee with a Chairman, Members and Experts, and they were doing regular selection for the aforesaid posts upto the year 2000.
5. It appears that from the year 2000 regular selections through the Teachers Recruitment Board on the posts of Lecturers in the Government Colleges are not being made in the State of Tamil Nadu. Instead by G.O.Ms.No.61 Higher Education dated 02.03.2000 it was provided that vacancies caused by the retirement/death/resignation of the teachers in these colleges could be filled in by appointing Guest Lecturers to be appointed by the Principals of the respective colleges without any regular selection by the Teachers Recruitment Board. These Guest Lecturers would be appointed only till the regular selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board or upto 31st March of the immediately succeeding year, whichever is earlier. Such Guest Lecturers would be paid a remuneration of Rs.100/- per hour and a maximum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Similar Government Orders have been issued repeatedly thereafter. The latest G.O.Ms.No.265, Higher Education (G I) Department, dated 15.06.2004 states:-
ABSTRACT Collegiate Education Appointment of 1,250 Guest Lecturers in Constituent Colleges (erstwhile Government Arts and Science Colleges) for the year 2004-2005 - Orders - Issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Education (G I) Department G.O.Ms.No.265 Dated:15.06.2004 Read:
1. G.O.Ms.No.61, Higher Education, dated 02.03.2000
2. Letter Ms.No.272, Higher Education, dated 19.09.2001
3. G.O. (ID) No.158, Higher Education, dated 08.10.2001
4. G.O.Rt.No.263, Higher Education, dated 23.08.2002
5. G.O.Rt.No.282, Higher Education, dated 24.07.2003
6. Director of Collegiate Education, Letter Rc.No. 19845/D2/2004, dt. .4.2004 & 28.0 5.2004 ORDER In the letter 6th read above, the Director of Collegiate Education has stated that there are 1496 Lecturer posts vacant in Government Constituent Colleges and requested the Government to fill up the above posts by Guest Lecturers so that students do not suffer.
2. The Government have examined the request of the Director of Collegiate Education at para-1 above and permit to fill up the vacant post by 1250 Lecturers by the Principals of erstwhile Government Arts and Science Colleges without consulting the Employment Exchanges at a remuneration of Rs.100/- per hour and Rs. 4000/- per month and they may remain in the post until either regular hands are selected by the Teachers Recruitment board or at the end of March 2005 whichever is earlier.
3. The Director of Collegiate Education is requested to follow the following norms while engaging the Guest Lecturers.
4. The Director Collegiate Education will intimate the number of Guest Lecturers to be engaged in each subject to the Principals of the Colleges concerned.
5. For arriving at the number of Guest Lecturers to be engaged in each subject, the following broad norms shall be followed by the Director of Collegiate Education.
a)If the total number of vacant posts in a subject is less than 10% of the sanctioned number of posts, then no guest lecturer will be permitted in that subject /department. b)If the total number of vacant posts, is more than 10% n minus one (N-1) Guest Lecturers will be engaged. N representing the number of vacant posts. In respect of one man department, if the post is vacant then one Guest Lecturer will be engaged. c)In respect of Colleges of Education, all the vacancies shall be filled up.
Principals of the Colleges should be instructed to prepare a list from the applications received for the post of Guest Lecturers. Candidates who have secured 55% and above are eligible to apply. The list should be prepared subjectwise and the applicants be ranked based on the marks obtained by them in the PG Examination. However, preference should be given to the candidates who have passed NET/SLET Examination. The rank list prepared subject-wise should be displayed on the Notice Board of the College to ensure transparency.
4. Depending upon the number of Guest Lecturers allotted by the Director of Collegiate Education, the Principals shall engage the required number of Guest lecturers from the rank list drawn as above. The Principals shall be requested to send a copy of the subject-wise rank list and the list of Guest Lecturers engaged to the Director of Collegiate Education for perusal.
5. No formal appointment order will be issued to the Guest Lecturers engaged.
6. The Guest Lecturers engaged shall be paid Rs.100/- per lecture hour subject to a maximum of Rs.4000/- per month duly obtaining a stamped voucher from the Guest Lecturer.
7.The Guest lecturer engaged shall be terminated at the end of the financial year or when the regular candidates selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board join duty whichever is earlier.
8. In Budget Estimate 2005-2005, a total sum of Rs.2.54 crores has been made under the following Head of account towards the expenditure on remuneration to the Guest Lecturers.
Sl.No. Head of Account
1. 220203-103-Government Colleges and Institute I Non Plan AA. Arts Colleges men - 33 Payments for Professional and Special Services.
2. 220203-103-AB-Arts Colleges (Women)-33 Payments for professional and Special Services
3. 220203-103-AC Colleges of Education (Men)-33 Payments for Professional and Special Services
4. 220203-103-AD-Colleges of Education (Women)-33 Payments for Professional and Special Services
5. The Director of Collegiate Education is directed to send necessary proposals for allotment of additional funds under the above mentioned Head of account in the Revised Estimate 2004-2005 consequent on the sanction accorded in para 2 above.
6. The Director of Collegiate Education is requested to send the action taken report to te Government in the matter.
7. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U.O.No.195/SS(KSG)/Edn.I/04 dated 15.06.2004.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) K.GNANADESIKAN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT."
6. It may be mentioned that for regular selection through the Teachers Recruitment Board as per U.G.C. Regulations the candidate must have passed the NET or SLET if they have not passed M.Phil on or before 3 1.12.1993 or submitted their thesis for PhD on or before 31.12.2002. This is made clear from the notification of the U.G.C. dated 31st July 2002 This requirement is now done away with in the above stated G. O. dated 15.06.2004 issued for the appointment of Guest Lecturers, and only preference is given to candidates who have passed NET or SLET examinations.
7. It may further be stated that in the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu in Na.Ka.No.19845/D2/2004 dated 19 .06.2004 it is made clear that no preference will be given to Guest Lecturers at the time of regular selection. Paragraph - 2 of the aforesaid order reads thus:-
"The Guest Lecturers now appointed will not be given any preference for regular appointment"
8. Having stated the background, we may now come to the facts of the present cases. Admittedly, the appellants were engaged as Guest Lecturers and were not appointed in a regular capacity through the Teachers Recruitment Board. In our opinion, a Guest Lecturer is like a temporary appointee, and hence he has no right to the post, vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 496, etc.
9. There is no rule of law that a temporary appointee has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. If that was the correct legal position then a person appointed on a temporary basis for even one month may claim to be entitled to continue for 20 years if there is no regular selection for 20 years. This is obviously not the correct legal position. The correct legal position is in fact just the reverse, namely, that a temporary appointee has no right to the post. In other words, he has no right to continue even for one day, far less having a right to continue till the regularly selected candidate is available. The service of a temporary appointee can be terminated at any time because he has no right to the post. Hence, we do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Guest Lecturers have a right to continue till the regular selection through Teachers Recruitment Board is made. It may be mentioned that the Guest Lecturers are appointed only till regular selection or till the end of the academic year i.e., 31st March, whichever is earlier. Thus, even their appointments were latest till 31st March of the following year. They are not paid salary on monthly basis, but only a certain amount per hour, and they are not even issued a formal appointment order. Thus, they are clearly temporary appointees and not permanent appointees. Hence, they have no right to the post.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants then contended that for regular selection a Guest Lecturer should have a preference over others. We do not agree. In the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu dated 19.06.2004 it has been made clear that Guest Lecturers will not be given any preference for regular appointment. Moreover, there may be bright young persons who may be more deserving to be appointed as Guest Lecturers than less deserving persons who have put in some service as Guest Lecturer. We see no reason why the deserving persons should not be appointed, and instead undeserving Guest Lecturers' appointments are continued by giving them preference. After all, merit should be the paramount criterion in making appointments on teaching posts as that affects the careers of a large number of young students.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants then relied on an observation of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.18476 to 18483 of 2 004 (K.L. Magendran & Others v. The Director of College Education, Chennai & Others) dated 29.06.2004. In paragraph - 7 of the said judgment the Division Bench observed:-
"The third respondent is directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment as Guest Lecturers for the academic year 2004-2005 and give preferential treatment to them, provided they satisfy the management with regard to their past performance".
12. In our opinion, this observation cannot be treated as a precedent because it is a mere direction without referring to any principle of law. Hence, it is not binding on us. It is well settled that a mere direction of a Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent, vide The Secretary, Saliar Mahajana Higher Secondary Schools, Aruppukottai v. G.Subburaj, (2005) 1 MLJ 233.
13. It may be mentioned that often Courts issue directions without laying down any principle of law, in which case such directions cannot be treated as precedents. For instance, in some cases, the Supreme Court has directed appointment of someone, or regularization, or payment of salary, without laying down any principle of law. This is often done on humanitarian considerations, but it will not operate as a precedent binding on the High Courts. For instance, if the Supreme Court directs regularization of service of an employee who has put in say 5 years of service, without referring to any principle of law, this does not mean that all employees who have put in 5 years of service must be regularized. Hence, such a direction is not a precedent.
14. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087, the Supreme Court observed that only a statement of law in a decision is binding.
15. In Delhi Administration v. Manoharlal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, the Supreme Court observed that a mere direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent.
16. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"The decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the Court, while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently? The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided...."
17. In J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, AIR 199 4 SC 1808 (vide paragraph -11) the Supreme Court has held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time for regularization of ad hoc appointments, are not the ratio of the decision. The aforesaid directions were to be treated as being issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and hence the High Court was not right in placing reliance on the said directions as a ratio to give direction to the Public Service Commission to consider the cases of the respondent. The Supreme Court observed:-
"This Court in Dr. A.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCR 335, gave directions under Article 142 to regularize the services of the ad hoc doctors appointed on or before October 1, 1984. It is a direction under Article 142 on the particular facts and circumstances therein. Therefore, the High Court is not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio to give the direction to the PSC to consider the cases of the respondents. Article 142 power is confined only to this Court. The ratio in Dr. P.C.C.Rawani v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 331, is also not an authority under Article 141".
18. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the observations in paragraph - 7 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.18476 to 18483 of 2004 (K.L. Magendran and Ors. v.. The Director of College Education, Chennai & Others) dated 29.06.2004 (supra) are not a precedent. There is no statutory rule that preference has to be given to Guest Lecturers when regular appointment is done through the Teachers Recruitment Board. Hence, we reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Guest Lecturers should be given preferential treatment. The Guest Lecturers will have to take their chance by appearing before the Teachers Recruitment Board along with others.
19. Then, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that one Guest Lecturer cannot be replaced by another Guest Lecturer. In support of the said submission the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130.
20. In paragraph - 25 of the said decision the Supreme Court observed:-
"Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority".
21. On the strength of the above observation by the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants are Guest Lecturers they should not be replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers, but can only be replaced by regularly selected Lecturers.
22. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, 2005-1-L.W. 209, in which the Supreme Court has observed (vide paragraphs 9 to 12): -
"Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.
In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:
'The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge.' In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, 'Lord Atkin's speech?? is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances'. Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: 'One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament'. And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:
'There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case'.
Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:
'Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. ????. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it".
23. Keeping the above considerations in mind we may carefully consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra). The facts in that case (as stated in paragraph - 2 of the said decision) reveal that temporary appointees had been initially appointed for 6 months or so, but had continued for 10 years or more, and had not been regularised, since there was no selection board in existence then in the State of Haryana. Hence, the State Government issued orders from time to time for regularization of such employees subject to certain conditions. In pursuance of the said orders some persons who satisfied the conditions prescribed in those orders were regularized, but many could not be regularised as they did not satisfy one or the other conditions prescribed. However, they had been allowed to continue in service. It is such persons who filed writ petitions praying for regularisation. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that if a person who has been given a temporary or ad hoc appointment and continued for a long time, the court presumes the need or warrant for regular posts and often directed regularization.
24. The Supreme Court referred to its own decision in Dharwad District P.W.D. Literature Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 883, Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228, etc.
25. Keeping the peculiar facts of the case in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (Supra) in mind we may now consider the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph - 25 of its judgment, namely, that one ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee.
26. It may be noted that the Supreme Court has specifically stated that it has made this observation only to prevent arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Hence, it follows that if there is no arbitrariness on the part of the appointing authority in replacing one ad hoc or temporary appointee by another ad hoc or temporary appointee there will not be any illegality.
27. Hence, there cannot be any absolute rule or principle that one ad hoc or temporary appointee can never be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary appointee. It all depends upon the facts of each case. To take a hypothetical example, a temporary appointee in service may totally incompetent whereas another person who is not in service may be very competent and eligible. We see no reason why the competent person cannot be appointed in place of the incompetent person, even if both appointments are ad hoc or temporary in nature. For instance, there may be a stenographer working in a temporary capacity who does not know shorthand or typing properly. In our opinion, he can certainly be replaced by a competent stenographer, who is very good in typing and shorthand, even if the latter is appointed in a temporary or ad hoc capacity. After all, without a competent stenographer an officer or Judge may find it difficult to work.
28. It may be noted that Guest Lecturers are appointed by the Principals of the Colleges. There is no guarantee that such an appointee is competent. The Principal may have various considerations for making such an appointment, not necessarily merit. Suppose one of such appointees is wholly incompetent and undeserving. Why can he not be replaced by a bright and deserving candidate? After all we have to see the matter from the point of view of the students. An incompetent teacher may adversely affect the future career of the students, while a bright teacher can greatly uplift it. Hence, in our opinion, if a deserving and competent candidate is available then he can certainly be appointed as Guest Lecturer in the place of another Guest Lecturer, who is incompetent and undeserving.
29. Thus, the aforesaid observation in paragraph - 25 of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra) does not, in our opinion, lay down any absolute rule that one temporary or ad hoc appointee can never be replaced by another temporary or ad hoc appointee. It all depends upon the facts of each case. If, however, it can be demonstrated that such replacement of one Guest Lecturer by another Guest Lecturer is wholly arbitrary, then of course, this Court can interfere, but no absolute rule can be laid down in this connection that one Guest Lecturer can never be replaced by another Guest Lecturer.
30. For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in all these writ appeals and they are all dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
31. However, before parting with these cases we wish to observe that it was not proper for the State Government to keep making appointments of Guest Lecturers year after year since the year 2000. This is demeaning to the Lecturers who are treated almost like casual or daily wage employees, and are given remuneration on an hourly basis and that too without even giving them any formal appointment order. What interest in their work will such teachers take, and what commitment will they have? There is no security of tenure for such teachers. Also, they are paid a paltry sum upto a maximum of Rs.4,000/per month. Is this the way to treat the Gurus of our youth? Even a peon in government service often gets more than Rs.4,000/- per month. Should our teachers be treated worse than peons?
32. It is also not in the interest of the students or the public to appoint Guest Lecturers on a large scale, because teachers who are given such appointments are not likely to take much interest in their work. They will not be able to work with a free mind and will feel all the time that there is a Damocles Sword hanging over their heads. Surely the students in Tamil Nadu deserve good teachers. Good education is of paramount importance for the progress of society in the modern age.
33. We fail to understand why for the past 5 years no regular recruitment has been made through the Teachers Recruitment Board, and instead this policy of appointing Guest Lecturers has been continued year after year. The teachers are the Gurus of society, and they must be given proper respect, proper status, and a secure job, so that they can function with a free mind and take interest in their work. This policy of making appointments of Guest Lecturers is not conducive to this end, and must now be revoked.
34. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rattanlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 478. It appears that in the State of Haryana, too, the State Government was making ad hoc appointments of teachers year after year. In this connection the Supreme Court observed:- "In all these petitions the common question which arises for decision is whether it is open to the State Government to appoint teachers on an ad hoc basis at the commencement of an academic year and terminate their services before the commencement of the next summer vacation, or earlier, to appoint them again on ad hoc basis at the commencement of next academic year and to terminate their services before the commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. A substancial number of such ad hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies which have remained unfilled for three to four years. It is the duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in those vacancies in accordance with the rules as early as possible. The State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in these cases. It has been appointing teachers for quite some time on an ad hoc basis for short periods as stated above without any justifiable reason. In some cases the appointments are made for a period of six months only and they are renewed after a break of a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave, etc., available to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to these ad hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. These ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy of 'ad hocism' followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer.
We, therefore, direct the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the vacancies in which teachers appointed on an ad hoc basis are now working and to allow all those teachers who are now holding these posts on ad hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies are duly filled up. The teachers who are not working on such ad hoc basis if they have the prescribed qualification may also apply for being appointed regularly in those posts. The State Government may also consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to those posts in the case of those who have been victims of this system of 'ad hoc' appointments. If any of the petitioners in these petitions has under any existing rule acquired the right to be treated as a regularly appointed teacher, his case shall be considered by the State Government and an appropriate order may be passed in this case. We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which 'ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These 'ad hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules".
35. The above decision of the Supreme Court was followed in Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1286. It appears that in the State of Orissa teachers were given ad hoc appointment for 89 days, and thereafter given fresh appointment after one day break in service. This had been going on for 4 years. The Supreme Court held this to be arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court, vide paragraph - 6, observed:-
"The Validation Act has been enacted by the Orissa legislature with the obvious object of granting relief to those members of teaching community who are being exploited for years together by keeping them in short spell appointments like 89 day-appointments as here with one day break and in the process denying them rightful dues and other service benefits. In spite of repeated deprecations by this Court the practice continues to be followed by various State Governments in the country. Under the Constitution the State is committed to secure right to education for all citizens. Bulk of our population is yet illiterate. Till the time illiteracy is effaced from the country the resolution enshrined in the Preamble cannot be fulfilled. Education is the dire need of the country. There are neither enough schools nor teachers to teach. Insecurity is writ large on the face of the teaching community because of nebulous and unsatisfactory conditions of service. In order to make the existing educational set-up effective and efficient it is necessary to do away with adhocism in teaching appointments. An appointment on 89 days basis with one day break which deprives a teacher of his salary for the priod of summer vacation and other service benefits is wholly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of discrimination".
36. The ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rattanlal v. State of Haryana and Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
37. We therefore direct that after 31.03.2006 all appointments of lecturers, and other teaching posts, including Principals, in Government Colleges in Tamil Nadu shall be made on a regular basis by selection through the Teachers Recruitment Board or any other legally constituted selection body and not by appointing Guest Lecturers. Such regularly selected teachers will be paid the U.G.C. grade salaries and guaranteed security of tenure. They shall also be given all benefits and perquisites allowable to regularly selected teachers. No Guest Lecturers or ad hoc Lecturers will be appointed or continued after 31.03.2 006.
38. The process for making regular appointments on all such vacancies which have not been filled in by regular selection must immediately begin, and must be completed within a reasonable time, so that on and after 01.04.2006 all the incumbents in the State will be regularly selected Lecturers and not Guest Lecturers or ad hoc Lecturers. We are giving adequate time to the State Government to switch over from the system of appointing Guest Lecturers to the system of appointing regular Lecturers, etc. During this period of 8 or 9 months the Government must complete the exercise of making selections through the Teachers Recruitment Board or other legally constituted selection body. The selection body must ensure that the most meritorious persons are selected as teachers so that the youth of Tamil Nadu may be benefited.