Key Points: - The Selection Board under Rules 1974 is the proper body for recommending candidates and institutional appointments, not the Managing Committee, with appointments transferable across state colleges (p_13, p_19, p_18, p_31, p_136, p_132). - Appointment of personnel lacking the minimum eligibility (54% in Master’s) cannot be cured by later condonation or relaxation; such appointments are illegal and cannot be regularized (p_71, p_40, p_41, p_39, p_68, p_70). - Grant of UGC pay scales cannot be granted prior to acquiring the deficiency/eligibility and after a long delay; relaxation cannot alter the fundamental eligibility or the date of grant-in-aid; delays and laches affect relief (p_69, p_70, p_52, p_53, p_55, p_56). - Relaxation of essential qualifications is not a general power and must be expressly provided; improper relaxation after the selection process is vitiating (p_42 to p_50, p_43, p_47, p_85). - If an order is bad in inception, subsequent actions cannot validate it; illegality at inception taints all further proceedings (p_37, p_63, p_64, p_65). - Article 14 demands positive equality; arbitrary/irrational orders violate Article 14 (p_55, p_58, p_59, p_60, p_63). - The Court directs specific four-month timelines to complete the examination of deficiencies and grant of UGC pay scale, with arrears to follow within four months (p_151, p_152, p_153).

How to determine whether appointments in Orissa aided colleges complied with Rule 1974 recruitment procedures?

What is the legal status of granting UGC pay scales to teachers who did not initially meet 54% in Master’s degree and relied on later relaxations or condonation?

What are the consequences when an order of appointment is bad in inception and cannot be cured by later relaxations or condonation?