1. Termination of service for lack of requisite qualifications under C.O.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 — subsequent challenge to termination and claim for higher post wages. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1087
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., M.N.Venkatachaliah, S.Mohan, JJ.
Central Hospital
Versus
Savita S.Bodke
Case No. : of 1994
Date of Decision : 11/7/94
An administrative tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over events occurring long before its inception, and an employee lacking the requisite qualifications for a post is not entitled to its salary, regardless of any overlap in duties with a lower-grade position.
Headnote:(A) C.O.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Termination of service - Lack of requisite qualifications - Acceptance of alternative appointment - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Grant of salary for a post for which the employee is unqualified - Not sustainable. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee appointed as a Staff Nurse was terminated after it was discovered that she lacked the requisite qualifications under the recruitment rules. The employee accepted an appointment as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife. After several years, a petition was filed before the administrative tribunal. The tribunal quashed the termination and directed payment of wages as a Staff Nurse.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in exercising jurisdiction over an event that occurred long before the tribunal's existence. Furthermore, salary for a post cannot be granted to an individual who does not possess the necessary qualifications for that post, regardless of whether duties overlap with a lower-grade post.
Issues: Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to quash a termination order issued prior to its establishment and whether an unqualified employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post based on overlapping duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over events occurring long before its inception. Additionally, the lack of requisite qualifications precludes an employee from receiving the salary of a specific post, and the mere overlap of duties between two different posts does not justify the payment of a higher salary. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal allowed, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct that the OA filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of termination for lack of qualification — jurisdiction of the tribunal to grant wages for a post for which the employee was unqualified. (Para 4 )
3. Tribunal erred in exercising jurisdiction over events preceding its existence and granting salary for a post for which the respondent lacked mandatory qualifications. (Para 4 )
4. A tribunal cannot grant salary for a post if the employee lacks requisite qualifications, nor exercise jurisdiction over events occurring before its establishment. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — order of the Tribunal set aside — original application dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Can a tribunal exercise jurisdiction over events that occurred before the tribunal was established?
No, the court held that a tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction in regard to events which occurred long before the tribunal came into existence. (Para 4 )
7. Is an employee entitled to the salary of a higher post if they lack the mandatory qualifications for that post?
No, the court ruled that payment of salary for a specific post is not justified when the employee is not qualified to be appointed to that post. (Para 4 )
8. Does the overlap of duties between two posts justify the payment of a higher salary scale?
No, the fact that duties of a lower post may overlap with or include functions of a higher post does not justify payment of the higher post's salary. (Para 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) LEAVE also granted to State that the appellant is the Union of India.
(3) HEARD counsel on both sides.
(4) THE facts reveal that the respondent was originally appointed as a Staff Nurse in 1975 but when it was found that she did not possess the requisite 9 qualifications required for Staff Nurse as per the relevant recruitment rules then in operation, her services were terminated on 8/3/1982 under the provisions of C.O.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The respondent did not question her termination and accepted the offer of being posted as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the scale of rs 260-350. Thereafter, she made certain representations, the last in 1985, against the termination order but they were rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification and was not eligible for the post of Staff Nurse. Taking advantage of the confirmation order issued in 1990, in 1991 she filed the petition in question before the central Administrative tribunal, Bombay, which came to be numbered as OA No. 241 of 1992. The tribunal notwithstanding the long lapse of time of almost a decade and notwithstanding the fact that her services were terminated in 1982 as she was found to be ineligible for want of qualification and further notwithstanding the fact that she had accepted appointment as ANM quashed the order of termination and granted her wages as if she was a Staff Nurse. We fail to understand how the tribunal could have exercised jurisdiction in regard to an event which occurred long before it came into existence and how it could direct payment of salary of Staff Nurse when she was not qualified to be appointed to the post. The duties of the Staff Nurse and ANM may overlap and in the absence of the former the latter may be required to carry out some of those functions but that would not justify payment of salary of the former. We, therefore, find it difficult to sustain the order of the tribunal.
(5) IN the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct that the OA filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
