Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HINDUSTAN EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. versus SK. KALEEM SK. GULAM NABI AND ORS.

Decided
10 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 910 · 1997 INSC 248
Also cited as
  • (1997) 5 SCC 152 (9 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 2126 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Since respondent No. 1, it is reported, has refused to receive the notice, it must be deemed to be sufficient notice. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 have been served. But they arc appearing neither in person nor through . counsel.

p. 910, margin E

Leave granted.

p. 910, margin F

Sim e, the respondents are appearing neither in person nor through counsel, we have taken the assistam;:e of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and ,'gone through the relevant rules and orders of appointment. The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed on June 10, 1992 against a clear vacancy with the following stipulation :

p. 910, margin G

"Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of 11 months from 11.6.1992 to 10.5.1993 in the clear vacancy. After expiry of the above period your service shall stand terminated without any

p. 911, margin A

notice."

p. 911, margin A

Thus, it could be seen that the appointment of the first respondent was only a temporary appointment ag&inst a clear vacancy. The appointments are regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Section 5 of the Act postulates as under :

p. 911, margin A

"5. Certain Obligations ·of Managements of Private Schools. (1) The Management shall as soon as possible fill in the manner prescribed every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy.

p. 911, margin C

Providing that, unless such vacancy is to be filled in by promotion, the Management shal~ before proceeding to fill in such vacancy, ascertain from the Educational Inspector, greater Bombay, or as the case may be, the Education Officer Zilla Parishad, whether there is any suitable person available on the list of. surplus persons maintained by ·him for absorption in other schools; and in the event of such person being available, the Management shall appoint that person in such vacancy. (2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy shall be on probation for a period of two years. Subject to the provisions of sub-section ( 4) and (5), he shall, on coinpletion of this probation period of two years, be.deemed to have been .confirmed. · · (3) If in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the Management may terminate his services at anytime during the said period after giving him one month's notice, or salary of one month in lieu of notice. ( 4) If the services of any probationer are terminated under subsection (3) and he is reappointed by the.Management in the same schoolor any other school belonging to it within a period of one year from which his services were terminated, then the period of probation undergone by him previously shall be taken into consideration in calculating the required period of probation for the purposes of sub-section (2). ( 4A) Nothing in sub-section (2), (3) or ( 4) shall apply to a person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy by promotion or by absorption as provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) .. (5) The Management may fill in every temporary vacancy by appointing a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy. The order of appointment shall be drawn up in the form - prescribed in that

pp. 911–912, margin D

behalf, and shall state the period of appointment of such person."

p. 912, margin C

In view of the above and the order of appointment, the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary for a limited period. Obviously, the approval given by the competent authority was for that temporary appointment. As regards permanent appointments, they are regulated by sub-sections(!) and (2) of Section 5 of the Act according to which the Management shall as soon as possible, fill up, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy. Every person so appointed shall be put on probation for a period of two years subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and(S). He shall, on completion of the probation of period of two years, be confirmed.

p. 912, margin C

Under these circumstances, the appointment of the respondent cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. As a consequence, the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 31, 1996 in writ petition No. 5821/95 that he was regularly appointed is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.

p. 912, margin E

The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The order of the High Court stands reversed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 912, margin F