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

JAS INTER COLLEGE KHURJA, U.P. AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
8 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 96 · 1996 INSC 707
Also cited as
  • (1996) SCC(L&S) 1339 (4 citing judgments)
  • (1996) 10 SCC 71 (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.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

It was mentioned in the order dated April 8, 1996 that in spite of adjournment of the case repeatedly, counter affidavit has not been filed. Consequently, this Court directed the respondents to appoint 18 teachers as required by the petitioners within the specified time. It is now the admitted position that eight teachers selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission were appointed. One of them had not joined the service. Consequently, seven persons out of 18 have taken charge. Resultantly, 11 candidates were not recommended for appointment . by the Commission. The petitioner-college appears to have appointed 11 teachers. It would be obvious that these 11 teachers would be ad hoc appointees p~nding disposal of the Writ petition and they would not and should not claim any right or equity whatsoever pursuant to the Said appointment. Under sub- section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act 5 of 1982), appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates mentioned therein, namely, (a) when the candidates recommended by the Commission or Board, as the case may be, join the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires; or (c) 30th day of June following the day oi such ad hoc appointment. In that view, the ad hoc appointments though not consistent \\ith Section 5 of the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, therefore, not according to rules, would remain operative until either of the events occur. The said arrangements of ad hoc appointment, if the writ petition is disposed of earlier, would be subject to the result in the writ petition. In other words, the ad hoc appointees should be replaced by candidates selected by the Commission and recommended for appointment in accordance "1th the said Act.

pp. 96–97, margin G

The application is accordingly disposed of. R.P. Petition disposed of.

p. 97, margin E