BANOLATA MOHAPATRA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 11-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
... 
BANOLATA MOHAPATRA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
MAY 11, 1999 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN. JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Seniority-Two persons appointed on the same date to 
the post of lecturer-Appellant improved her marks earlier to respondent 
and qualified for getting grant-in-aid-Two posts of lecturer sanctioned-
deficiency in qualification of respondent condoned by the University and the C 
Government before appointment to posts-Respondent given seniority over 
appellant-Held : Governing Body correctly fixed seniority of respondent 
over· appellant after conducting an enquiry-State Government being final 
authority to grant sanction for appointment, cannot be questioned unless 
there is arbitrariness or illegality in the decision. 
D 
Appellant and Respondent No. 4 were appointed as lecturers on the 
same day. For being eligible for grant-in-aid it was necessary to obtain first 
class marks. Appellant improved her marks and became eligible. Two posts 
of lecturer were sanctioned. Disqualification of respondent was however 
condoned by the University and State Government Appointment to the posts E 
was made after condonation. Respondent was found to be senior to appellant 
by the Governing Body after an enquiry. This was challenged before the High 
Court which dismissed It. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court called for the relevant file and on perusing 
the record it was found that Minister of Education accepted the resolution 
of the Governing Body holding respondent No. 4 was~ senior to the appellant. 
F 
The Court also noted that the enquiry report of the Director, which was 
available on record, also indicated the same position. It is found from the said G 
report, that not only the appellant and respondent No. 4 were present at th~ 
time of enquiry but also the Dy. Director who submitted the earlier report. 
The Director after considering all aspects gave a clear finding that respondent 
No. 4 was senior to the appellant and this report of the Director has been 
accepted by the High Court. In view of the above report, the report of the Dy. 
Director has to be ignored, as he was subordinate officer to the Director and H 
457 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 3 s.c.R. 
A he was also present when Director conducted the enquiry.[460-B-C; E-FJ 
l 
· 2. Till the deficiency was condoned the services of the parties were not 
approved by the State Government for the post of lecturer for grant-in-aid. 
The State Government is the final authority to accord sanction for giving 
grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in the college in question; therefore the 
B decision of the State Government is binding on the parties and also on the 
college unless it is arbitrary or contrary to any rule. In the instant case no 
fault could be found in the order of the Government. [460-H; 461-AJ 
c 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3472 of 1998 
Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.96 of the Orissa High Court 
in O.J.C. No. 1874of1996. 
M.N. Krishnamani, S.K. Patri, Rajiv Roy, P. Mullic and R.S. Jena for the 
Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia, P.H. Parekh and L.S. Chauhan for the Respondent. 
P.N. Misra, J.K. Das, S. Misra, R.M. Patnaik, A. Mohapatra, N.K. Sahoo, 
Ms.Sunita Sharma, Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das and S.N. Rath for the 
State of Orissa. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. PHUKAN, J. Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High 
Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant. 
The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed in O.J.C. 
F No. 867 of 1990. Thereafter review petition no. 76/95 was filed which was 
dismissed by orqer dated 02.02.1996. One civil appeal has been filed before 
this Court against the above two orders. Another separate writ petition was 
filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as O.J.C. 
No. 1874 of 1996. By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed. 
Against the said order of dismissal the another appeal has been filed. Both 
G the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 
To appreciate the contentions of the parties we may briefly state the 
facts of the case. 
The appellant and respondent No. 4 joined the post of lecturer in 
H economics in the college namely Kamla Nehru Women's College, Bhubaneswar 
...... 
B. MOHAPATRA v. STATE [S.N. PHUKAN, J.) 
459 
on the same day i.e. 27.07.1979. The college be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.