DR. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 08-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 
(S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
SeTVice Law: 
Orissa Homeopathy Medical Teaching SeTVices (Methods of Recruit-
ment and Conditions of SeTVice) Rules, ,_980-Rules 6, 7 & 8-Appointment C 
to the Post of Junior Teachers-Recruitment to the post of Junior Teachers 
made on the basis of selection held by the Selection Board need not be in 
consultation with the Public SeTVice Commission-However such selection 
cannot be made on the sole basis of candidates' character Rolls-Qualities 
required for teaching post-Laid down. 
Powers of Selection Committee-Selection Committee or Selection 
Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis 
for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection. 
D 
The Appellants who had obtained Diploma in Homeopathic 
Medicine and Surgery, and the Respondents S and 6 who had obtained E 
Degree in Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine & Surgery were originally 
working as Homeopathic Medical Officers in the State of Orissa. 
In 1985, the appellant were recruited as Junior Teachers in the Dr. 
Abin Chand Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneshwar. F 
When a challenge was made to their recruitment by respondents S & 6 the 
High Court quashed their selection on the ground that the selection was 
not made by a proper Selection Board and directed the State to conduct 
fresh selection. 
On constituting a fresh Selection Board and on reconsideration the G 
appellants were again appointed as Junior Teachers/Demonstrators. This 
was again challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal quashed the 
selection on the following grounds 
(a) the candidates who were selected by the Selection Board had to 
be approved by the Public Service Commission; 
419 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(b) the selection was vitiated by the method adopted in as much as 
B 
c 
it was solely based on the character rolls; and 
(c) the candidates should have been allotted to different disciplines 
available in the College. 
11 
The appellants viz. the candidates and also the State in a separate 
Appeal contended that rule 5 of Service Rules 1980 as to selection of Junior 
Teachers does not require the consultation with the commission, and that 
the Tribunal could not sit in judgment over the selection process and that 
the non-assignment of different disciplines does not vitiate the selection 
itself. 
Disposing of the Appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 1980 Rules which deal with 
promotion to the post of lecturers and principal of Homeopathic,Colleges 
D do not apply to the recruitment of Junior Teachers. [430-F] 
E 
F 
2. The selection of candidates is not vitiated by their non-allocation 
to various disciplines in the college or by not determining the vacancies 
discipline-wise before selection, as it is always open to the Colleges 
authorities to allocate the appellants to different disciplines even after 
selection. [431-H] 
3. The selection Committee does not have the jurisdiction to lay down 
the criteria for selection unless they are authorised specifically in that 
regard by the rules made under Article 309. [433-G] 
4. The following three criteria are to be followed for appointment on 
a teaching post viz. 
(a) he should have thorough knowledge of the subject concerned; 
G 
(b) he should be organised in his thoughts; and 
(c) he should possess the art of presentation of his thoughts to the 
students. [435-D] 
5. The Character Rolls cannot form the SOLE basis for determina-
H tion of suitability for the post of junior teachers. [435-F-G] 
KC. SAHU v. STATE OF ORISSA [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
421 
6. The basis of character rolls adopted by the selection Board was A 
wholly arbitrary besides being without authority or jurisdiction. [ 436-F] 
7. The selection should have been held on a criteria which was 
inclusive of the merits so that the best and most suitable could have been· 
selected. [436-G] 
Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 and Ashok Kumar 
Yadav's case (1984) 4 SCC 417, affirmed. 
PeTVez Qadir v. U.O./. and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 318 and R.S. Dass 
v. U.O.I & Ors., AIR (1987) SC 593, distinguished. 
B 
c 
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors., 
(1990) 1 SCC 305; State of A.P. & Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Others AIR 
(1989) SC 2060; Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. U.O./. & Ors. (1984) 2 SCR 
2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.