LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

STATE OF KERALA versus MOTHER ANASTHASIA, SUPERIOR GENERAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 06-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

>-
' 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
MOTHER ANASTHASIA, SUPERIOR GENERAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1997 
[K RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Calicut University Act, 1975 : 
Sections 57(1), (4) and (6) - Lecturers-Preferential claim for appoint-
ment-Could be claimed only by those Lecturers discharged 011 abolition of 
the post or course of study or such similar circumstances-A temporary 
teacher in q leave vacancy cannot be considered as a discharged einployee as 
such-Hence she cannot claim preferential Right. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6768-6Y 
of 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.80 of the Kerala High 
Court in O.P. Nos. 8_68177-C and 4934 of 1976-D. 
M.T. George for the Appellant. 
Joseph Paikada for K.M.K. Nair and M.A. Firoz (NP) for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 868177 and 4934/76. 
The admitted position is that Smt. Mary Lily, the thirdΒ· respondent, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
was temporarily appointed in a leave vacancy for a period of three months G 
effective from January 2, 1974 in St. Joseph's College for Women, Irin-
jalakuda. After the expiry of the period, she ceased to be a lecturer. In 
1976, when a permanent vacancy had arisen advertisement was made for 
recruitment. Pursuant thereto, ~hen 27 candidates including the third 
respondent had applied for and called for selection therein Smt. Mariam-
ma Chacko, fourth respondent was selected. The third respondent chal-
H 
1013 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A lenged the validity of the selection and appointment of Smt. Mariamma on 
the ground that under Section 57(6) of Calicut University Act, 1975, she 
had preferential claim for appointment since she was a discharged 
employee. Sub-section (6) of Section 57 reads as under: 
B 
c 
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (i) and ( 4) 
a teacher discharged from a private college on or after the 14th 
day of March, 1974, due to abolition of a course of study in that 
college or for any other reason except disciplinary action against 
him shill be given reference in the matter of future appointments 
in the private college or, as the case may be, or any of the private 
colleges under the management of the educational agency within 
the university area." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
A reading thereof would indicate that notwithstanding anything con-
D tained in sub-section (i) and Section 4 of Section 57, a teacher discharged 
from a private college on or after March 14, 1974 due to abolition of a 
course of study in that college or for any other reason except on discipli-
nary action against him, shall be given preference in further appointments 
in a private college or any of the private colleges under the Management 
of the educational agency within the university area. Admittedly, the third 
E respondent was appointed in a leave vacancy for a short period of three 
months. The intendment of sub-section (6) appears to be only that when 
permanent teacher or teacher appointed on a regular basis is discharged 
from service due to abolition of the course of study in that college or for 
any other reason, obviously, other analogous causes other then disciplinary 
action, such a teacher who held the post was given preferential treatment 
F for future appointment. A temporary teacher in a leave vacancy cannot be 
considered as discharged nor claimed the status as discharged employee. 
Discharge would connote for any other reason ujus dem generis due to 
abolition of the post or course of study or such similar circumstances 
except for discharge due to misconduct. Such a teacher only will be eligible 
G to set up preferential claim for appointment but not a teacher who for-
tuitously came to be appointed in a leave vacancy much less for a limited 
period. 
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. 
G.N. 
Appeals disposed of. 
< 
r-