STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. ETC.ETC versus SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC.ETC.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. ETC.ETC.
v.
SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC.ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3036-3064 of 2022)
APRIL 20, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions)
Rules, 1974 – rr.5, 6 – Tribunal allowed the Original Applications
filed by the respondents, thereby setting aside their termination and
allowing them to continue as Government servant as third teacher/
Assistant Teacher in Middle English Schools (M.E. Schools) as
regular teacher, same relief was granted to 137 Hindi Teachers also
– Writ petitions filed by the appellants, dismissed – On appeal, held:
Perusal of the approval order of the Government of Orissa,
Education and Youth Service Department, would reveal that for
each M.E. School, only two posts, i.e., one post of a Trained
Graduate Headmaster and one post of a Trained Matric Teacher,
have been sanctioned – The order clearly provides that no other
post of teaching and non-teaching staff would be permitted – It is
not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/
teachers have been made directly by the respective Management
without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/
Statute – Appointments made in contravention of the statutory
provisions are void ab initio – Tribunal erred in allowing the Original
Applications of the applicants/teachers – Similarly, the High Court
also erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants –
Impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the Tribunal
are set aside – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Service Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Perusal of the approval order dated 12th
September, 1980 of the Government of Orissa, Education and
Youth Service Department, would reveal that for each M.E.
School, only two posts, i.e., one post of a Trained Graduate
Headmaster and one post of a Trained Matric Teacher, have been
sanctioned. The order clearly provides that no other post of
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 343
343
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
teaching and non-teaching staff would be permitted. It is not in
dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/
teachers have been made directly by the respective Management
without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/
Statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in
contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. The
contention raised that since the applicants/teachers were
appointed on posts which were not on grant-in-aid basis, the said
Rules are not applicable is not accepted. The said Rules would
clearly show that they are applicable to Aided Educational
Institution. Undisputedly, the institutions in which the applicants/
teachers were appointed, were recognized as Aided M.E. Schools
vide G.O. dated 12th September, 1980. It is also not in dispute
that the appointments so made were subsequent to the schools
being recognized as Aided Schools. As such, the contention in
that regard deserves to be rejected. [Paras 31-33][356-E-G; 357-
B-C]
1.2 The Tribunal, while delivering the judgment and order
dated 18th May, 2017 and 30th January, 2018, has failed to take
into consideration the earlier orders dated 25th June, 2013 and
23rd September, 2013 delivered by the same Tribunal. In the
said orders of 2013, the Tribunal had elaborately considered the
provisions of the said Rules and found no merit in the contentions
raised on behalf of the applicants therein. The orders passed by
the Tribunal ignoring its earlier orders, which were passed
elaborately considering the scheme of the said Rules, are totally
contrary to the well-established norms of judicial propriety. The
situation becomes graver, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has allowed
O.A. No.2270 OF 2015 by its order dated 18th May, 2017 filed
by Sri Antaryami Bal, whose earlier application being O.A. No.
4029(2) of 1996 with regard to the same relief was rejected by
the Tribunal vide its earlier order dated 12th April, 2012. The
orders passed by the Tribunal are, therefore, totally unsustainable.
Not only this, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has failed to
take into consideration the order passed by this Court on 2nd
December, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 15712 of 1996. The impugned
order passed by the High Court depicts total non-application of
mind. Whereas the cause title would itself show that a Wri

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