BICHITRANANDA BEHERA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 11-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 404 : 2023 INSC 902
404
CASE DETAILS
BICHITRANANDA BEHERA
v.
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023)
OCTOBER 11, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in dismissing the 
appeal fi led 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:
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 
405
continued for its full term by virtue of the interim order of the High Court 
and even in the fi nal 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 verifi ed, with him 
having been sent on election duty thrice, are suffi  cient pointers that the 
appellant had actually worked and continued on the post – Also, competent 
authorities came to a fi nding 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 benefi ts – 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-in-
Aid Order, 2004 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Acquiescence. 
[Paras 15-18, 20, 22, 23 and 25]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa 1997 (II) OLR 122 – held 
inapplicable. 
Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 : [2008] 12 SCR 
104; Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25; Chairman, State 
Bank of India v. M J James (2022) 2 SCC 301 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2017 of the High Court of 
Orissa at Cuttack in FAO No. 497 of 2008.
BICHITRANANDA BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA AND 
OTHERS
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Appearances:
Soumyajit Pani, Aishwary Bajpai, Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Bharat Sangal, Sr. Adv., Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, 
Ms. Manjula Gupta, Prem Sunder Jha, M.D. Pandey, Niranjan Sahu, Sibo 
Sankar Mishra, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, 
Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.