Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Kabita Mohapatra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) Nos.20773 and 25344 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Budhadev Routray, Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
For the Respondent: Mr. Sameer Kumar Das

Seniority among teachers must be determined based on the date of entry into service rather than date of birth, upholding Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Service Jurisprudence - Seniority determination - Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Guidelines dated 31.08.2020 issued by the Department of Higher Education, Odisha deemed arbitrary - Date of entry into service as the valid principle for seniority adjudication. (Paras 10-14)

(B) Legal position - Inter se seniority must be established based on date of appointment and cannot deviate for arbitrary standards. (Paras 10-15)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenged the appointment of the Opposite Party No.6 as Principal based on seniority influenced by guidelines prioritizing age over date of entry. The Court noted that both parties were appointed in 1993, with respective joining dates impacting their seniority claims.

Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the arbitrary seniority guidelines, confirming that appointments must consider the date of entry into service.

Issues: Whether seniority can be based on date of birth rather than date of appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that the initial date of appointment is the standard to determine seniority among teachers, dismissing the State's reliance on age for this purpose.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments of the parties regarding guidelines and applicability (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis on seniority principles (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. principle for determining inter se seniority (Para 14)
5. court's orders and directives (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

ORDER :

1. Both the matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed by the same Petitioner. W.P.(C) No.20773 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2021 under Annexure-12 passed by the Director, Higher Secondary Education wherein the Opposite Party No.4 relying upon the guidelines dated 31.08.2020 fixed the seniority of the Opposite Party No.6 based on her date of birth above the present Petitioner and consequentially appointed the Opposite Party No.6 as the Principal-in-charge-cum- secretary of Rani Sukadei Mahila Higher Secondary School, Banki, Cuttack. W.P.(C) No.25344 of 2021 has been filed challenging the revised seniority list of Teachers of the said School prepared by the then Principal-In-Charge placing the Petitioner at serial No.2 of the said list.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter presented before this Court remain that the pursuant to appointment order dated 30.06.1993, the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer in Economics. The Petitioner received Block Grant Aid with effect from 20.01.2009 as per GIA Order, 2008.

4. The Opposite Party No.6 was appointed to the post of Lecturer in Odia vide appointment order dated 17.07.1993 and she received Block Grant Aid with effect from 20.01.2009 as per GIA Order, 2008. Subsequently, both the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.6 were allowed to receive the regular grant vide GIA Order 2017 with effect from 01.01.2018.

5. The Government vide letter No.27964 dated 31.08.2020 issued guidelines towards fixing the seniority of teachers of Non-Govt. Aided Colleges for the appointment of Principal and HODs. In the said notification, it was clarified that the seniority will be determined on the basis of date of birth.

6. After the issuance of letter dated 31.08.2020, the Opposite Party No.6 who is senior in terms of age, tried to get her name approved as the Principal(I/C) of Rani Sukadei Mahila Higher Secondary School, Banki, Cuttack, ahead of the Petitioner. Furthermore, the revised format seniority list of the teachers of the college prepared by the Principal also enlisted the name of the Petitioner in Sl. No. 2 with her date of joining mentioned as 05.07.1993 whereas the name of the Opposite Party No.6 has been reflected in Sl. No.1 and her date of joining is mentioned as 17.07.1993.

7. In the meantime, Mr. Shyama Sundar Rout, Reader of Banki College who was posted in the Petitioner’s college retired on 30.06.2021 and before the retirement of Mr. Rout, the Sub-Collector by referring to guidelines dated 31.08.2020 recommended the name of the Opposite Party No.6 even though she is junior to the Petitioner in terms of date of entry into service.

8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the guidelines dated 31.08.2020 under Annexure-8 is arbitrary and discriminatory and vide order dated 11.07.2022, the same has already been quashed by this court in Kamala Kanta Das v. State of Odisha & Ors, W.P.(C) No.230 of 2022.

9. Per Contra, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that Rani Sukadei Mahila Higher Secondary School is a junior college and the office order dated 31.08.2020, issued by the Department of Higher Education, Odisha cannot be made applicable to the current set of facts.

10. On perusal of the abovementioned pleadings, this Court is of the view that in the matter of adjudging seniority of the teachers, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation or date of entry into service is the valid principle for adjudging inter se seniority of the teachers. This principle was iterated in the case of Sudhir K