IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
MAMATA MOHANTY - RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2011
Decided On : 09-02-2011
Appointment - Educational Qualifications - Rules 1974 - Rules 1979 - Notifications/Circulars/Letters - UGC Pay Scale - Delay and Laches - Article 14 - Arbitrariness - Per Incuriam Doctrine
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, involving the appointment of teachers in various colleges. The respondents were appointed as Lecturers in different colleges without possessing the requisite qualifications. They sought the benefit of UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986, despite not meeting the eligibility criteria. The High Court granted the benefit of UGC pay scale to the respondents, relying on its earlier judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appointments of the respondents were made without following the prescribed procedure and without possessing the required qualifications. The Court held that the respondents could not claim the benefit of the UGC pay scale unless they completed the deficiency in their educational qualifications. The Court also noted the delay and laches in approaching the court for relief and emphasized the importance of maintaining high academic standards in educational institutions.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the appointments made without following the prescribed procedure and the eligibility of the respondents for the UGC pay scale. The Court also considered the delay and laches in seeking relief and the application of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that appointments made without following the prescribed procedure and without possessing the required qualifications were illegal. The Court also emphasized that the benefit of the UGC pay scale could only be granted after the completion of the deficiency in educational qualifications. Additionally, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining high academic standards and the inapplicability of adverse possession or holding over in service jurisprudence.
Final Decision: The Court directed the authorities to examine the factual position of individual teachers regarding their qualifications and eligibility for the UGC pay scale. It ruled that the UGC pay scale could only be granted from the date of completing the deficiency in qualifications and that arrears of pay, if any, should be paid within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ.
1. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack which have been passed placing reliance on its earlier judgments in similar cases. The facts and legal issues involved herein are the same. Thus, they are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. However, for convenience, Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2011 is taken to be the leading case and some reference to facts would be taken from other appeals as and when necessary in the context of legal issues involved herein.
2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14157 of 2005.
FACTS:
3. (A) The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Niali College, Niali, on 9.7.1979 and her appointment as such was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, a statutory authority - the appellant No.2, vide order dated 18.12.1985, and she was granted the benefit of receiving 1/3rd grant-in-aid.
(B) In order to provide better facilities to teachers and enhance the standard of higher education, the Government of Orissa, came out with a Notification dated 6.10.1989 with a revised pay scale enforceable with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the recommendations of UGC. However, the said Notification was applicable only in such cases where the post has been granted the benefit of grant-in-aid Scheme by 1.4.1989 and person manning that post had a good academic record i.e.54 per cent or its equivalent grade in a Master's Course.
(C) Respondent did not make any representation before any authority to get the benefit of the said Notification dated 6.10.1989, rather approached the High Court on 11.11.2005 by filing Writ petition (Civil) No. 14157 of 2005 seeking a direction to the State Government to pay the pre-revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 placing reliance on the various orders passed by the High Court earlier in cases of other persons e.g. in case OJC No.3705 of 1987.
(D) The present appellants contested the said writ petition pointing out that the respondent had secured only 40 per cent marks in her Master's course. She was by no means, eligible for appointment. Her appointment, being not in consonance with law, remained illegal.
(E) The High Court placing reliance on its earlier judgments, allowed the said writ petition giving the benefit of the U.G.C. pay scale to her w.e.f. 1.6.1984. Hence, this appeal.
4. The submissions made in all these appeals, particularly by the respondents are that the High Court had been dealing with the subject matter for a long time and judgments of the High Court have been upheld by this court. Once the SLPs against the judgments of the High Court which had been relied upon by the High Court while deciding these cases, have been dismissed in limine, judicial discipline and decorum demand that this Court should follow the same order. Thus, the judgments and orders impugned herein did not warrant any interference.
5. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that factual and legal issues involved in these cases have never been considered either by the High Court or by this Court in proper perspective. For example, in Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2011, State of Orissa v. Mrs. Manju Patnaik, the matter had initially been filed before the Orissa Education Tribunal. Therein, the question arose as to whether the respondent herein had been appointed by following the procedure prescribed by the law for making the appointment. As the State had raised the issue that respondent had been appointed without following any procedure known in law for this purpose her appointment itself was illegal and void. The vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in Paramananda College, Bolgarh, Dist-Khurda was never advertised nor were the names of eligible candidates requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. Admitted facts in
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Sajal Kumar Roy and Others
Dr Rash Lal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others
Dr Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal and Others
Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others
State of Karnataka and Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya and Others
Ritesh Tewari and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Union of India (UOI) Vs. Dharam Pal Etc.
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
State of Orissa and another Vs. Damodar Nayak and another
Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Bhanu Lodh and Others
Mamleshwar Prasad and Another Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) through L. Rs.
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
The Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore
Upen Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam and Others
Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others
Osmania University Teachers` Association Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others
Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Frank Anthony Public School Employees` Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Another
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Nalla Raja Reddy and Others
State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society and Others
Trojan and Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
The Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali and Others
Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Others
Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and Another
Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another
Hotel Balaji and others, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. etc.
Ram Ganesh Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another
Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Narvedshwar Mishra (Dead) by Lrs. and Others
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees` Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others
Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna and Others
K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. and Others
State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc.
Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Others
Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda Vs. The Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Others
Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others
Dr. M.S. Patil Vs. Gulbarga University and Others
Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others
Kamlesh Babu and Others Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others
National Fertilizers Ltd. and Others Vs. Somvir Singh
Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others
K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others
Post Master General, Kolkata and Others Vs. Tutu Das (Dutta)
Telecom District Manager and Others Vs. Keshab Deb
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.