Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus SUKANTI DEBI on 2 December 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
v.
SUKANTI DEBI
DECEMBER 2, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
Se1vice Law-Directio11 give11 by T1ibu11al for appointme11t against a funtre vaca11cy-Va/idity of-State of Orissa-M.E. Schools-Respo11dent ap-pointed in a third post as Hi11di Teacher which was not a sanctioned C post-Need for such an appointment 11ot recognised by Managemem--Govem-ment i11stntctions dated May 1, 1992-Direction that Hi11di being a non-Ex-aminable subject in M.E. Schools, there was no need to allow the existing Hi11di teachers in M.E. Schools to continue fwthe1'-fleld direction issued by Tribunal to appoim respondent against a future vacancy was not light.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15712 of 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.95 of the Central Ad-ministrative Tribunal at Cuttack, Orissa in O.A. No 1499 of 1993.
Ms. Kirti Mishra for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
F Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack, made on March 2, 1995 in OA No. 1499/93. Though the respondent was served on September 30, 1996, she G did not appear. Therefore, we adjourned the matter by pcoceecijngs dated October 28, 1996 to see whether she appears or is represented through counsel. Even today, she has not appeared.
The only question is : whether the direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint him in future vacancy is valid in law? It is seen that the third H respondent came to be appointed in a third post as Hindi Teacher which 434
STATEv.SUKANTI DEBI
was not sanctioned post; nor was the need for such an appointment A recognised by the management. It is also stated that he was not qualified for the post. We need not go into the question of his qualification. Suffice it would be to state that the Government in their letter dated May 1, 1992 have stated as under :
B
"I am directed to invite a reference to Go\t. Education Department B Letter No. 13409, dated 17.3.1992 and to inform you that Hindi being a non-Examinable subject in M.E. Schools, there is no need to allow the existing Hindi teachers in M.E. Schoo], to continue further. Therefore, it was decided that the Hindi teachers who are ... in M.E. Schools will be adjusted against the third post of C teachers in M.E. Schools provided they possessed Matric C.T. Qualification. In case any of them not ... C. T. Qualification he should be given chance tc acquire C.T. Qualification as in service candidate by summer vacation ... he will be allowed untrained scale of pay till then. In case any one is non-Matric he should be given the chance to acquire an equal C.T. Qualification. In case of D former, the qualification would be acquired within three years for issue of order and in case the of non-Matriculation qualification should be acquired within period of Five Years."
In view of the above, the Tribunal was not right in giving the direc-E
ti on.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.