Bichitrananda Behera vs State of Orissa and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

11 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 404 : 2023 INSC 902

Issue for consideration

High Court if justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of State Education Tribunal whereby the State was directed to approve the appointment of Respondent No.5 on the post of Physical Education Trainer (PET) in the school in question and release of block grant in his favour. Service Law – Delay/Laches – Solitary post of PET in the school in question – Respondent No.5 challenged the approval order dtd. 02.04.2005 of the appellant before the Tribunal, claiming to be continuing as the PET in the school in question w.e.f. 10.01.1993 on the basis of resolution dtd. 07.01.1993 of the Managing Committee constituted on 28.12.1992 – Claim, if belated:

Headnote

Held: Appellant was appointed by the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 and given appointment on 14.05.1994 during the time when a stay order granted by the High Court in favour of the said Managing Committee was continuing i.e., since 11.01.1993 – Thus, the appointment of the appellant made by the aforesaid Managing Committee cannot be labelled illegal per se nor termed void ab initio – Further, the then incumbent who was appointed as PET in the School, continued till 15.10.1993, when he was terminated – Thus, in the absence of the post being vacant on 07.01.1993, Respondent No.5 could not have been appointed by way of the resolution dtd.07.01.1993 followed by the appointment letter issued on 10.01.1993 – Also, when the interim order dtd.11.01.1993 was vacated, the term of the Managing Committee approved on 15.12.1992 was already over – Since the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 continued for its full term by virtue of the interim order of the High Court and even in the final order disposing of the case, no adverse comment was made on actions taken by the said Managing Committee, coupled with the fact that the appellant continued to discharge the duties on the post right since his appointment, which is documented and verified, with him having been sent on election duty thrice, are sufficient pointers that the appellant had actually worked and continued on the post – Also, competent authorities came to a finding about the factum of Respondent No.5 having worked in another School during the period in question– Furthermore, in the period of over 12 years (from 07.01.1993 to 04.05.2005), Respondent No.5 had not moved before any forum, asserting his claims qua the solitary post of PET in the School in question – Respondent No.5 should have been non-suited on the ground of delay and laches, which especially in service matters is vital, juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence – Judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal set aside – Appellant entitled to continuance on the post of PET in the School, with service counted from 14.05.1994 with all consequential benefits – However, State of Odisha to grant a lump-sum of INR 3 lakhs to Respondent No.5, this shall not constitute a precedent – Orissa Education Act, 1969 – s.24-B - Grant-inAid Order, 2004 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Acquiescence. [Paras 15-18, 20, 22, 23 and 25]

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.01.2017 in F.A.O. No.497 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 15.11.2008 in GIA Case No.39 of 2005 of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) directing the Respondents No.1 & 2 to

View Subscription Plans →