LexDIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND ORS. versus PRATAP KUMAR NAYAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND ORS. A v. PRATAP KUMAR NAYAK JANUARY 6, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, H.] Administrative Tribunal-Power of review-Held Tribunal cannot go behind the main orde1-Sclzeme sponsored by Central Govemment for educa- tion programme-Appointment off acilitato1'!>~Directio11 given by Administra- B tive Tribunal to appellants to consider the case of respondent according to C rules-Respondent not appointed since he did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications-Application for contempt filed by respondent-Order by T1ibunal that respondent be given appoi111ment-Cl1allenge to order passed by T1ibunal-H eld the Tribunal has gone wrong in giving direction contrmy to the directions issued in the main orde1-I11 a review petition, the T1ibwwl could not have gone behind the main order and issued fresh directionS-Order D passed by T1ibunal set aside. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIDN : Civil Appeal No. 102 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.96 of-the Orissa Ad- E ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in M.P. No. 3473 of 1995. P.N. Misra for the Appellants. Mrs. Kirti Mishra for the Respondent. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 15.1.1996 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, made in M.P. No. 3473/95. The respon- G dent was initially appointed as non-formal Facilitator under a non-formal Education Programme, a scheme sponsored by the Central Government for imparting primary education to the children in the age group of 6 to 12 year. The State Government issued on October 10, 1990 guidelines for appointment of Facilitators as regular primary school teachers. In the said H 21 '22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R. A guidelines, the Facilitators have to complete three years of service and must have acquired C.T. training by 31.12.1990. When the respondent filed an O.A. in the Tribunal, the Tribunal had given direction to the appellant to consider his case according to rules. It is not in dispute that by proceedings dated May 19, 1993, his case was considered and he was not found eligible B under the rules. The respondent filed contempt proceedings in the Tribunal stating that the appeilants have deliberately violated the orders passed by the tribunal. In the impugned order, it is stated that : c D E F "In the circumstances, the order dated 11.11.1992 be implemented within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant be given appointment like his juniors who have been given such appointment. If none of his juniors have been given appointment, then the Respondents would take action as per the prevailing instructions by giving him notional appointment as Sik- hyakarmi in accordance with the Circular dated 24.9.1992 and after determining his deemed date of appointment as Sikhyakarmi, give appointment to him· as regular primary school teacher, as is being done in cases of Sikhyakarmis." Calling that order in question, this appeal has been filed. From the order, it is clear that the Tribunal has gone wrong in giving direction contrary to the directions issued in the main order. Since direc- tion was issued to consider his case according to rules, necessarily, the appellants were required to consider the claim of the respondent in ac- cordance with the guidelines. Obviously, since the respondent had not fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in the guidelines, he could not be appointed. Accordingly, his case was rejected. The impugned direction is contrary to the direction issued on the earlier occasion and the rules. Therefore, in a review petition, the Tribunal could not have gone behind the main order and issued fresh directions. When we asked the learned G counsel for the appellant to state whether any of the juniors of the respon- dent have been appointed, it is stated that none of the juniors have been appointed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has stated that some of the persons who did not fulfil the qualifications are being ap- pointed and, therefore, it is contrary to the direction issued by the Tribunal. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, they are not juniors to the H respondent and we do not know under what circumstances their appoint- r DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDU. v. P.K NA YAK 23 ment came to be made. But the learned counsel for th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.