Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Ajaya Kumar Mohapatra - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.28615 of 2021
Decided On : 21-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Kumar Das. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Samal, Aga, Mr. Tathagata Sahoo, Adv., Mr. Prasanta Ku. Mohanty 2, Adv.

Seniority in service must be determined by the date of appointment rather than date of birth, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

Headnote:(A) Seniority - Government Orders dated 31.08.2020 and 13.09.2021 - Inter-se seniority dispute among teachers - The validity of appointments under Grant-in-Aid scheme and deemed dates of joining are central to determining seniority. The Government's fixation of seniority based on date of birth is contrary to established service jurisprudence. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Principle of Seniority - Seniority must be based on the date of appointment rather than date of birth. The Supreme Court has reiterated that inter-se seniority must consider the date of initial appointment following prescribed rules. (Paras 8, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the government's orders affecting his seniority as Principal in charge against other appointed teachers who have been deemed to have similar start dates in service, complicated by a fixational guideline issued by the State. The petitioner contends he has valid seniority based on earlier service and legal principles. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition due to the arbitrary nature of the government's seniority directive based on date of birth, thereby restoring the petitioner's seniority. (Paras 13)

Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the government's appointments of other teachers and the principle used to determine the fixation of seniority between the petitioner and the opposite parties. (Paras 4, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court principles affirm that seniority should be traced from the date of appointment, not subject to alteration by arbitrary criteria such as date of birth, reaffirming protected rights of service. (Paras 8, 10, 12)

Result: Writ Petition allowed and government orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner contests seniority against colleagues. (Para 3)
2. arguments from both parties regarding seniority rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court cites precedent on seniority determination. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. writ petition allowed; prior circular quashed. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Sameer Ku. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K Samal, learned Additional Government Advocate for State, Mr. Tathagat Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 and Mr. P.K Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 and 5.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Government Orders dated 31.08.2020 and 13.09.2021 and to restore the seniority of the petitioner over Opposite parties 4 and 5 and to allow the petitioner to continue as Principal in charge of J.N. College, Kuanpal. The writ petition raises the issue of inter-se seniority dispute between the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite party Nos.4 and 5The petitioner commenced his service as a Lecturer in Botany (2nd Post) in Remuli College, Remuli, District Keonjhar from 28.02.1989. His appointment was approved from 27.04.1998 and he was brought into the Grant-in-Aid fold from 01.06.1994. According to the petitioner the valid and deemed date of joining for all practical purpose was 28.02.1989. Thereafter, he was transferred to J.N College, Kuanpal and has been continuing there in that post till date. Meanwhile, the State Government issued order No.27964 dated 31.08.2020, prescribing guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers for the appointment of “Principal” and “Head of Department” in non-government colleges. The said notification superseded the earlier circulars and guidelines with regard to the appointment of principals in aided colleges. Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 were posted in the +3 wing of the said college w.e.f 01.06.1989. The said appointments were approved vide GIA order dated 21.06.2004. Further, the appointments were approved under the Grant-in-Aid scheme vide order dated 21.12.2011, and were paid Grant-in-Aid from 01.06.1994.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that +3 wing of J.N. College, Kuanpal, came into existence from the session 1989-90. But, the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 were continuing in J.N. College, Kuanpal from 05.11.1986 against non-sanctioned, in-admissible and non-created post. The O.P. Nos.4 and 5 also belong to the same Group-B teachers as per Clause-1 of the Government Guidelines issued on 31.08.2020. Thus, the past services of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. from 05.11.1986 and 08.08.1988 respectively till 31.05.1989 are void and non- existent in the eyes of law. Moreover, their valid date of joining could be 01.06.1989. Premising on the aforesaid averments it is clear that the petitioner has seniority in service over opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. This makes the petitioner the senior most approved lecturer of the institution, and he has supervening merit to be the Principal in-charge of the College. Additionally, the Government Notification fixing the seniority by virtue of date of birth is unwarranted in service jurisprudence, since the said notification prescribes date of joining as the sole criterion for determining seniority.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submits that the appointments of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 have been made in accordance with prescribed guidelines issued by the Department vide Letter No. 27964 dated 31.08.2020. In the said notification, the appointments of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 fall under the purview of Category-B, enshrining the determining factor of seniority to be the deemed date of joining.

6. Since, the deemed date of joining of the Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 is the same, date of birth was taken as a yardstick for determining seniority. Furthermore, the petitioner has moved this Court with wrong and mala-fide submissions. The