1. Dispute over seniority between two lecturers appointed on the same day and eligibility for grant-in-aid following condonation of qualification deficiencies. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 632
1999(5) Supreme 351
Supreme Court of India
(From Orrisa High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Banolata Mohapatra -Appellant
versus
State of Orissa & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3472 of 1998 etc.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3548-3549 of 1998
Decided on 11-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Patri, Rajiv Roy, P. Mullic and R.S. Jena, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate, P.H. Parekh and L.S. Chauhan, Advocates.
For the State of Orrisa : P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocate, J.K. Das, S. Misra, R.M. Patnaik, A. Mohapatra, N.K. Sahoo, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Aruneshwar Gupta, Majoj K. Das and S.N. Rath, Advocates.
Important Points
The State Government's decision on seniority and grant-in-aid for college lecturers is binding unless arbitrary or contrary to rules, especially when supported by the college Governing Body's resolution and an official enquiry report by the Director of Higher Education.
Subject
Administrative Law - Seniority Disputes
Headnote
Service Matter - Seniority -Fixation of-Respondent No. 4 filed writ petition before High Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis seniority of appellant-Writ petition allowed-Review petition dismissed -Ciivil appeal before Surpeme Court aginst orders-Separated wirt petition filed by appellant before High Court dismissed-Second appeal filed aginst order of dismissal-High Court on perusing record and resolution of Governing body found that respondent No. 4 senior to appellant-Report of Director accepted by High Court-Dy. Director Subordinate officer ot Director-His report to be ingnored-State Government binding on parties-On college also unless arbitrary to any rule-High Court decided question rightly-No interference-called for-Appellant entitled to get benefit for second post provided otherwise qualified.
Held : The State Government is a final authority to accord sanction for giving grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in the college in question, therefore, the decision of the State Government is binding on the parties and also on the college unless it is arbitrary or contrary to any rule. We do not find any fault in the order of the Government. Therefore, we hold that the High Court decided the question rightly and no interference is called for. However, the appellant may be entitled to get benefit for the second post provided she is otherwise qualified. (Para 9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether joining time or appointment letter date determines seniority, and whether subsequent condonation of qualification deficiencies affects seniority and grant-in-aid eligibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court prioritized official college records and the report of the superior officer over subordinate reports and irrelevant timing of joining. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. The decision of the State Government regarding grant-in-aid is binding unless arbitrary or contrary to rules. (Para 9 )
5. Appeals dismissed; seniority of the respondent upheld. (Para 10 )
6. Does the specific time of day of joining on the same date affect seniority?
No, the court held that joining in the forenoon versus the afternoon on the same day is not relevant for the purpose of examining the question of seniority. (Para 5 )
7. Which record prevails when conflicting copies of a Governing Body resolution are presented?
The resolution produced by the institution where the records are officially kept is accepted over copies produced by the parties. (Para 6 )
8. In a conflict between reports of a Director and a Deputy Director, whose finding prevails?
The report of the Director prevails, as the Director is the superior officer and the enquiry conducted by the Director considered all aspects, including the subordinate's report. (Para 7 )
9. Does the subsequent condonation of a qualification deficiency prevent a candidate from claiming seniority or grant-in-aid?
No, once the deficiency in qualification is condoned by the University and State Government, the individual can be considered for grant-in-aid and seniority. (Para 8 )
10. What is the legal status of the State Government's decision regarding the sanction of grant-in-aid for college posts?
The State Government is the final authority to accord sanction for grant-in-aid, and its decision is binding on the parties and the college unless it is arbitrary or contrary to any rule. (Para 9 )
Judgment
S.N. Phunkan, J.-Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant. The wirt petition ws allowed by judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. Thereafter review petition No. 76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996. One civil appeal has been filed before this Court against the above tow orders. Another separate writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 1874 of 1996. By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal the second appeal has been filed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. To appreciate the contnetions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.
3. The appellant and respondent No. 4 joined the post of lecturer in economince in the college namely Kamla Nehru Women’s College, Bhubaneswar on the same day i.e. 27.07.1979. The college became eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government in the year 1982-83 under rlevant rules. As the appellant and respondent No. 4 were not qualified as they did not have the requisite percentage of marks in M.A., grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in economices was not released. The appellant imporved the marks and secured first class and, therefore, she was qualified to get grant-in-aid for the post. It may be stated that second post of lecturer in economics was also sanctioned by the Government in the year 1987. On 8.7.87 the University condoned the deficiency of qualification of responedent No. 4 and the State Government did the same on 27.11.1986. The Governing Body of the College passed the resolution fixing the senirority between the appellant and respondent No. 4 and treated respondent No. 4 to be senior and an enquiry was also conducted by the director of higher education who found respondent No. 4 to be senior. The Minister of Education of the Government accepted the resolution of the Governing Body and ordered respondent No. 4 to be senior to the appellant vide order dated 19.01.89 As grant-in-aid was not released, respondent No. 4 approached the High Court by filing first writ petition namely O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. The Division Bench of the High Court inter alia held that respondent No. 4 must be appointed against the first post of lecturer in the College and thereafter she would be entitled to receive grant-in-aid. The direction was issued to the concerned authority to release the grant-in-aid.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It may be stated that before this Court the appellant has filed number of documents which were not produced before the High Court and as such we ignore all these documents.
5. It has been urged that though both appellant and respondent No. 4 joined on the same day but the appellant joined in forenoon and respondent No. 4 in afternoon and futher the letter of appointment to the appellant was sent earlier. We are of the opinion that these are not at all relevant for the purpose of examining the question of seniority.
6. The appellant placed reliance on a copy of the resolution of the Governing Body, dated 15.12.1979 vide annexure-A to the petition. In the said resolution the name of the appellant had been shown against the first post in economice in the college and the name of respondent No. 4 against the second post. In the counter filed on behalf of the College namely respondent Nos. 3 and 4, a copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexxure-2 and from the said resolution we find that the appellant was shown against the second post and the respondent No. 4 against the first post of lecture. As resolution of the Governing Body are kept by the College and the above resolution has been duloy produced by the college, it has to be accepted and not the copy of the resolution annexed by the appellant. We find from the judgment of the High Court in O.J.C. NO. 8
