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

2011 Supreme(Ori) 598

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

The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made without following the prescribed procedure and without possessing the required qualifications are illegal. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of maintaining high academic standards and the inapplicability of adverse possession or holding over in service jurisprudence.

Headnote:

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




















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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