Back
1997 Supreme(Ori) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Datta, R.K. Patra, JJ.
DR. BALAKRISHNA SATAPATHY - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2878 of 1992
Decided On : 17-01-1997
B.K. Patnaik and R.C. Mohanty, for the Appellant; S.K. Das, A.S.C. for opp. parties 1 and 2 and D.K. Mohapatra and Minati Mishra for opp. party No. 3, for the Respondent
A Government decision that is prospective in nature cannot affect an appointment that was made prior to the issuance of the decision. The right to hold a post cannot be defeated or taken away on the basis of a prospective Government decision.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - APPROVAL - ELIGIBILITY - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT DECISION - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF RULES - RIGHT TO HOLD POST OF PRINCIPAL CANNOT BE DEFEATED OR TAKEN AWAY ON THE BASIS OF PROSPECTIVE GOVERNMENT DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer with 15 years of teaching experience and a Ph.D. degree, was appointed as Principal of N.A.C. College, Burla in July 1979. The Government issued a letter in June 1989 stating that the post of Principal shall be filled up by a person either by transfer from the common cadre or from the select list prepared by the Selection Board or by deputation from the Government. The petitioner challenged the validity of this decision and the subsequent order asking another person to remain in charge of the Principal's post.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's appointment as Principal was valid as he possessed the requisite qualification and experience at the time of his appointment. The Government decision was prospective in nature and could not affect the petitioner's appointment, which was made prior to the issuance of the decision. The Court also held that the petitioner's right to hold the post of Principal could not be defeated or taken away on the basis of the prospective Government decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment as Principal was valid? 2. Whether the Government decision was retrospective in nature and could affect the petitioner's appointment? 3. Whether the petitioner's right to hold the post of Principal could be defeated or taken away on the basis of the prospective Government decision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and experience at the time of his appointment as Principal. 2. The Government decision was prospective in nature and could not affect the petitioner's appointment, which was made prior to the issuance of the decision. 3. The petitioner's right to hold the post of Principal could not be defeated or taken away on the basis of the prospective Government decision.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order asking another person to remain in charge of the Principal's post and directed the Government to accord approval to the petitioner's appointment as Principal with effect from 4-8-1979.
JUDGMENT :
R.K. Patra, J. - In this petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks for a direction to opp. parties and 2 to accord approval to his appointment as Principal in N. A. C. College, Burla with effect from 4-8-1979. He also assails the validity of the order dated 27-3-1992 (Arinexure-1) issued by the Director, Higher Education, Orissa permitting opp. party No. 5 to remain in charge of the Principal-cum-Secretary of the college till alternate arrangements are made.
2. Briefly narrated, the petitioner's case is that he passed M. A. (oriya) in First Class from the Utkal University in 1964. He has also obtained Ph. D. degree in Oriya from the Sambalpur University in 1976. On 26-8-1964 he was appointed as a lecturer in Oriya in Nayagarh College which is an aided educational institution. After serving for some time he came to be appointed, as a lecturer in Rajasthan College, Cuttack, on 19-8-19o6. Subsequently, on being selected by Orissa Public Service Commission, he joined as a lecturer in Class II of the Orissa Education Service in Fakir Mohan College, Balasore. In August, 1968, he was transferred to Vikram Dev College, Jeypore and continued there till 8-10-1969. Thereafter, he was appointed as a lecturer in Oriya in the Post Graduate Department of the Sambalpur University from 10-10-1969 and continued there for about 10 years till he came to be appointed as Principal in the N. A. C. College, Burla as per the order dated 23-7-1979 (Annexure-3). After being relieved from the Sambalpur University, he joined as Principal of N. A. C. College, Burla on 4-8-1979. The Government in the Education and Youth Services Department letter dated 12-9-1980 (Annexure-4(a) accorded concurrence to the college from the academic session 1979-80. The Sambalpur University in its letter dated 1-11-1980 Annexure-4(b)] accorded affiliation to the college subject to the condition that it should appoint full-time teaching staff including Principal. On 1-6-1984, the college was admitted to grant-in-aid. The Director in his office order dated 4-6-1987 (Annexure-8) approved the Governing Body of the college with the petitioner as the Principal. While serving as Principal, the petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Director (NGC-I) in the office of the Directorate Higher Education, Orissa on 9-11-1983 (Annexure-9 (a)] to regularise his appointment as Principal of the college from the date of his joining in the post. The Governing Body through its President in letter dated 25-7-1937 (Annexure-9(b)) requested the Government to accord necessary approval to the post of Principal of the college.
While the matter stood thus, the Government in its letter No. 26623 dated 13-6-1983 [Annexure-10 (a)] intimated the Director, Higher Education, Orissa that the Governing Body of an aided college cannot appoint Principal unless he holds a teaching post. Allegation of the petitioner is that although he deserves to be approved as Principal of the college, the Deputy Director (NGC-I), Orissa in his office letter No. 62539 dated 16-11 -1991 [Annexure-1O(b)] informed the President of the Governing Body of the college that the petitioner cannot be approved as the Principal of the college in view of the Government letter No. 26323 dated 13-6-1989 [Annexure-10(a)]. Thereafter, the impugned letter dated 27-3-1992 (Annexure-1) was issued permitting the opp. party No. 5 to remain in charge of the Principal-cum-Secretary of the college. The case of the petitioner is that the Governing Body having appointed him as the Principal of the college who fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Government the opp. parties 1 and 2 ought to have approved his appointment as Principal.
3. The Governing Body-opp. party No. 3 has filed its counter affidavit and supported the case of the petitioner. The State represented through its Secretary in the Education Department and Director, Higher Education, Orissa (opp. parties and 2) have fiied counter-affidavit resistin
