PABITRA MOHAN DASH versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 04-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PABITRA MOHAN DASH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF OR!SSA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
.le-
Service law: 
Orissa Education (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers 
and Principals and Staff of Aided lnslituliolis) Rules, 1974: Rules 6, 7 and 8. C 
Regulation 17 (w.ef 29-4-l 977)-Seconda1y Schools-Headmasters 
of-Minimum qualificalions-Trained graduate in Arts or Science with 
-+-
minimum 7 years' experience after /raining-Prior to Regulation 17 minimum 
qualificalion was only a trained graduate-Full Bench of High Court after 
considering Ac/, Rules and Regulations issued certain direclions-Second D 
Full Bench affirmed !he said directions-However, Special Full Bench held 
the direclions issued by firsl full Bench lo be contrary lo la11~Special Full 
Bench also held thal order of approval passed by Inspector of Schools in 
respecl of Headmasters not possessing minimum experience was invalid-
Whether Special Bench right in reconsidering matter afresh-Whether benefits 
accrued to persons under first Full Bench could be taken away by Special 
Bench-Held: No infirmity in the Special Bench reconsidering the matter 
afresh and re-determining the issues-Special bench justified in taking away 
benefits accrued as a result of erroneous interpretation of la11~Appoinlmenl 
made contrary to Regulation 17 is invalid and does not confer any right on 
E 
7---
the appointees-Where such appoi/1/ment is made with prior approval of F 
Director of Education it cannot be invalidated-Approval of appointment by 
Inspector of Schools is no approval in the eyes of law- "In-charge" 
Headmaster not same as headmaster and such persons cannot claim any 
right even if such appoi11tme1it is approved by Competent Education 
Authority-Orissa Seco11da1y Education Act, 1952-0rissa Educalion. 
The appellants were headmasters of different schools in the State. 
Regulation 17 (w.e.f. 29-4-1977) framed under tile Orissa Secondary 
Education Act, 1952 ~tipulated that the Headmasters of these schools should 
G 
be at least a trained graduates in Arts or Science with minimum 7 years' 
experience after training. A Full Bench of the High Court considered the H 
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A provisions of the Act, Orissa Education '(Recruitment and Condition of Service 
~-
of Teachers and Principals and Staff of Aided Institutions) Rules, 1974 and 
j£ 
Regulations framed thereunder and issued certain directions. A second Full 
Bench affirmed these directions and held that there was no need to reconsider 
the judgment of the first Full Bench judgment. However, a Special Bench of 
B 
five Judges reconsidered the entire matter afresh and held that the directions 
issued by the first Full Bench were contrary to law. The Special Bench also 
held that the order of approval passed by the Inspector of Schools in respect 
of Headmasters who did not possess the minimum experience and appointed 
-~ 
after Regulation 17 came into force was invalid in terms of Rule 8(3) of the 
Rules. Hence this appeal. 
c 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the benefits accrued 
to the appellants under the First Full Bench judgment and affirmed by the 
second Full bench judgment could not be taken away by the Special Bench 
judgment. 
+ 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Special Bench rightly thought it appropriate to reconsider 
and re-determine the issues involved in the light of the relevant provisions 
of the Orissa Secondary Education Act 1952, Orissa Education Act, 1969, 
Orissa Education (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers and 
.JI-- -
E Principals and Staff of Aided Institutions) Rules, 1974 and Regulations after 
hearing at length on all issues and their was no infirmity on that score even 
though the point of reference was of a limited nature. Courts exist to interpret 
the law and while examining the provisions of any Act, Rule or Regulation 
if it is felt that the earlier decision on the question is not clear on any 
particular issue or has created confusion in resolving the disputes or has 
F caused heardship to a group of people, it would be the duty of the court to 
~ 
re-examine the matter after giving opportunity to all parties concerned and 
by such process question of taking away anybody's vested right does not 
arise. In the present case it is not a particular writ or order that had been 
issued in favour of any individual is sought to be nullified by the subsequent 
G Spe

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