Top
News Updates

NLU Jodhpur: SC Partially Stays HC Judgment That Held Service Regulations Providing Contractual Employment of Teachers Unconstitutional [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
28 Jun 2019 9:08 AM GMT
NLU Jodhpur: SC Partially Stays HC Judgment That Held Service Regulations Providing Contractual Employment of Teachers Unconstitutional [Read Order]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has partially stayed a Rajasthan High Court judgment which had held that the Service Regulations providing for employing teachers on contract basis for a tenure or on adhoc term only and providing for termination of contract by giving one month's notice, is unconstitutional.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice BR Gavai, while considering the special leave petition filed by NLU Jodhpur, clarified that it has not stayed the proceedings before the Single bench on other aspects.

While disposing of the writ petitions filed by three contractual employees of National Law University, Jodhpur, who were released by the university in wake of university's decision to discontinue B.Sc. L.L.B Course, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court had issued following directions:

      • I. The impugned Service Regulations 5 & 6, notified on 8th of March 2002 and made enforceable w.e.f. 1st of April, 2002, were ex-facie contrary to then prevailing Statute 9(1) of the University wherein procedure for appointment was prescribed in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1974,
      • II. Despite amendment in Statute 9 of the University, which came into effect on 27th of August, 2004, the Service Regulations 5 & 6 continued to remain repugnant to the provisions contained in Sections 3, 5 & 6 of the Act of 1974 for the reason that applicability of these Sections of the Act of 1974 is not affected by amendment in Statute 9, as the Act of 1999 cannot be construed as a special Statute vis-avis Act of 1974.
      • III. Further, the Act of 1999 being sub-silentio about procedure for appointment of teachers and officers of University as nothing contrary to the Act of 1974 find mention therein, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the Act of 1999 though subsequent legislation does not affect the applicability of the Act of 1974.
      • IV. The Service Regulations providing for employing teachers on contract basis for a tenure or on ad hoc term only and providing for termination of contract by giving one month's notice are manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable and in clear negation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution.
      • V. The Service Regulations 37 & 38 being consequential and necessary corollary to Regulations 5 & 6 also suffers from the same vice.


    The Apex Court bench has stayed directions I, II and IV.

    The High Court had termed it as glaring example of the "hire & fire" policy and depriving teachers from the service benefits. It impressed upon the need to do away with total Adhocism or contractual appointment amongst teachers and said that nebulous and unsatisfactory conditions of service of the teaching community create a sense of insecurity which may ultimately result in making education set up ineffective and inefficient.

    Read Order



Next Story
Share it