SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 334

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
State Of Odisha & Ors. Etc.Etc. - Appellant
Versus
Sulekh Chandra Pradhan Etc. Etc. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos.3036-3064 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22987-23015 of 2019]
Decided on : 20-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pabitra Kumr Biswal,Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Javedur Rahman, Adv. Mr. Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio.
(2) Mere dismissal of Special Leave Petition would not mean that view of High Court has been approved by Apex Court.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Termination – Reversal – Detailed selection procedure is prescribed for making appointment of vacancies arising in Aided Educational Institution – Appointment of all applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by respective Management without following procedure as prescribed under Rules/Statute – Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio – Appointments so made were subsequent to schools being recognized as Aided Schools – Impugned order passed by High Court depicts total non-application of mind – No reasons are reflected in impugned order while dismissing writ petitions filed by State – Impugned judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court and judgments and orders of Tribunal passed in a batch of Original Applications quashed and set aside – Original Applications filed by respondents/applicants before Tribunal dismissed. [Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 – Rules 5 and 6](Paras 30, 32, 33 and 39)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Mere dismissal of Special Leave Petition would not mean that view of High Court has been approved by Apex Court. (Para 37)

Facts of the case:

Appellants – State of Odisha and others have approached this Court, being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20th December, 2018, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in a batch of writ petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6557 of 2018 along with connected matters, thereby dismissing the said writ petitions filed by the appellants – State of Odisha and others, challenging judgments and orders delivered by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar/Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 18th May, 2017 in O.A. No. 2266 of 2015 along with connected matters and 30th January, 2018 in O.A. No.3420 (C) of 2015 along with connected matters. Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench had allowed the Original Applications filed by the applicants therein (respondents herein), thereby setting aside the termination of the applicants (respondents herein) and directing/allowing them to continue as Government servant as third teacher/Assistant Teacher in Middle English Schools (“M.E. Schools”) with effect from 1st April, 2011, as regular teacher.

Findings of Court:

Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Applications of applicants/teachers. Similarly, the High Court has also erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants-State of Odisha and others have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2018, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in a batch of writ petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6557 of 2018 along with connected matters, thereby dismissing the said writ petitions filed by the appellants - State of Odisha and others, challenging the judgments and orders delivered by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar/Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 18th May, 2017 in O.A. No. 2266 of 2015 along with connected matters and 30th January, 2018 in O.A. No.3420 (C) of 2015 along with connected matters.

3. Vide order dated 18th May, 2017, delivered in O.A. No.2266 of 2015 along with connected matters, the Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench had allowed the Original Applications filed by the applicants therein (respondents herein), thereby setting aside the termination of the applicants (respondents herein) and directing/allowing them to continue as Government servant as third teacher/Assistant Teacher in Middle English Schools (hereinafter referred to as “M.E. Schools”) with effect from 1st April, 2011, as regular teacher. Vide order dated 30th January, 2018, the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench followed its earlier order dated 18th May, 2017 and granted the same relief to 137 Hindi Teachers.

4. The parties are referred herein as they are referred to in the Original Applications.

5. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:

6. All the applicants joined the Aided M.E. School as Hindi Teachers, in or around 1988-89. The applicant-Sulekh Chandra Pradhan (respondent No.1 herein) in the lead case before the Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, i.e., O.A. No.2266 of 2015, was appointed on 21st June, 1988 and joined on 23rd June, 1988, as Hindi Teacher at Nrusingha Jena M.E. School, Naginipur in District Kendrapada. The appointment of the said applicant was made by the Managing Committee of the said School.

7. On 12th May, 1992, the Government of Orissa, Education Department issued a resolution, thereby taking over all M.E. Schools situated in the State of Odisha with effect from 1st April, 1991. Though the Government took over all the teachers including non-teaching staff of the M.E. School as Government servants, Hindi Teachers were not taken over as Government servants and therefore, the services of the applicants were automatically terminated. Aggrieved thereby, on 2nd July, 1993, Sulekh Chandra Pradhan (respondent No.1 herein), approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by way of Writ Petition being OJC No. 3042 of 1993, thereby raising a grievance that the benefits extended to Hindi Teachers in terms of the letter of the Deputy Director, Sanskrit, Hindi and Special Education (hereinafter referred to as “the Deputy Director”) dated 1st May, 1992 were not being extended to him. It was asserted that though he possessed the requisite qualification, he was not being absorbed against the third teacher post in the M.E. School where he was earlier working. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1993, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Director of Elementary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as “the Director”), to look into the grievances of the petitioner therein (i.e. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan) within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

8. On 7th January, 1994, the Government of Orissa issued a clarification that the letter dated 1st May, 1992 of the Deputy Director addressed to all Inspectors of Schools/all District Inspector of Schools, was applicable only to the teachers, who were appointed against sanctioned posts and were drawing their salaries from the Government fund under Plan and non-plan scheme. By the said communication dated 1st May, 1992, the Deputy Director had clarified that


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top