Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 – rr.5, 6 – Tribunal allowed the Original Applications filed by the respondents, thereby setting aside their termination and allowing them to continue as Government servant as third teacher/Assistant Teacher in Middle English Schools (M.E. Schools) as regular teacher, same relief was granted to 137 Hindi Teachers also – Writ petitions filed by the appellants, dismissed – On appeal, held: Perusal of the approval order of the Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Service Department, would reveal that for each M.E. School, only two posts, i.e., one post of a Trained Graduate Headmaster and one post of a Trained Matric Teacher, have been sanctioned – The order clearly provides that no other post of teaching and non-teaching staff would be permitted – It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/Statute – Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio – Tribunal erred in allowing the Original Applications of the applicants/teachers – Similarly, the High Court also erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants – Impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the Tribunal are set aside – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Service Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Perusal of the approval order dated 12th September, 1980 of the Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Service Department, would reveal that for each M.E. School, only two posts, i.e., one post of a Trained Graduate Headmaster and one post of a Trained Matric Teacher, have been sanctioned. The order clearly provides that no other post of teaching and non-teaching staff would be permitted. It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/Statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. The contention raised that since the applicants/teachers were appointed on posts which were not on grant-in-aid basis, the said Rules are not applicable is not accepted. The said Rules would clearly show that they are applicable to Aided Educational Institution. Undisputedly, the institutions in which the applicants/teachers were appointed, were recognized as Aided M.E. Schools vide G.O. dated 12th September, 1980. It is also not in dispute that the appointments so made were subsequent to the schools being recognized as Aided Schools. As such, the contention in that regard deserves to be rejected. [Paras 31-33][356-E-G; 357B-C]
1.2 The Tribunal, while delivering the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2017 and 30th January, 2018, has failed to take into consideration the earlier orders dated 25th June, 2013 and 23rd September, 2013 delivered by the same Tribunal. In the said orders of 2013, the Tribunal had elaborately considered the provisions of the said Rules and found no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants therein. The orders passed by the Tribunal ignoring its earlier orders, which were passed elaborately considering the scheme of the said Rules, are totally contrary to the well-established norms of judicial propriety. The situation becomes graver, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has allowed O.A. No.2270 OF 2015 by its order dated 18th May, 2017 filed by Sri Antaryami Bal, whose earlier application being O.A. No. 4029(2) of 1996 with regard to the same relief was rejected by the Tribunal vide its earlier order dated 12th April, 2012. The orders passed by the Tribunal are, therefore, totally unsustainable. Not only this, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has failed to take into consideration the order passed by this Court on 2nd December, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 15712 of 1996. The impugned order passed by the High Court depicts total non-application of mind. Whereas the cause title would itself show that a Writ Petition (Civil) No.6557 of 2018 is disposed of by the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the order dated 18th May, 2017, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2266 of 2015, has not been challenged by the State. Whereas the teachers have hardly worked for four years and a substantial part thereof on account of interim orders passed by the High Court, the High Court goes on to observe that the teachers have worked for a period of more than 20 years. No reasons, leave aside sound reasons, are reflected in the impugned order while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State. [Paras 34, 35][357-D-G; 358A-B]
1.3 That leaves the Court with the submission that since the view taken by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition challenging the same has been dismissed, the view of the Tribunal has become final. A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. As such, the contention in that regard is rejected. The Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Applications of the applicants/teachers. Similarly, the High Court has also erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 20th December, 2018 passed in a batch of writ petitions and the judgments and orders dated 18th May, 2017 and 30th January, 2018 of the Tribunal passed in a batch of Original Applications are quashed and set aside. The Original Applications filed by the respondents/applicants before the Tribunal are dismissed. [Paras 36-39][358C; 359-D-F] Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and Another v. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse (Mrs) and Others (1991) 3 SCC 246 : [1991] 2 SCR 282; J & K Public Service Commission and Others v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Others (1994)
2 SCC 630 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 900; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 : [2008] 15 SCR 331; Union of India and another v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463 : [2018] 4 SCR 1012; Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (1997) 2 SCC 635 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR
434 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.