STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus LOKNATH RAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 15-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

--
ST A TE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
v. 
A 
LOKNATH RAY AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Orissa Educational Act, 1969/0rissa Education (Recruitment and 
Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided C 
Educational Institutions) Rules I 97 4 and Circulars fixing yardsticks for fixation 
of Staff Strength : 
Appointment of Respondent No. I-incumbent as Peon/fourth peon by 
School Management-Approval not granted by State authorities-Challenge 
to-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Post mentioned in the Circulars D , 
is 'Daftry' and not fourth peon '-Post of Daftry carries higher scale of pay 
and is a promotional post-Hence, High Court was not justified in directing 
appointment of the incumbent as fourth peon-However, if the school has 
sanctioned the post of 'Daftry ', the appointment of the incumbent for Class-
IV post could be made by promoting one of the three existing Class-JV 
employees-School Management directed to consider the claim of the incumbent E 
accordingly-Directions issued 
Respondent No. 1 was appointed as 'fourth Peon' in a School. 
However, the State Authorities did not approve the appointment of 
respondent No. 1. Challenging the decision of the Authorities, the F 
incumbent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court 
holding that the State authorities were not justified in refusing to grant 
approval for the appointment made by the School. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The expression used in the Circulars issued by the 
Government of Orissa fixing standard staff for non-governmental 
Secondary Schools is "Daftary" and not "fourth peon". The High Court 
seems to have fallen in error by proceeding on the basis as if the Circulars 
referred to "fourth peon". The post of "Daftary" carries higher scale of 
G 
sn 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A pay and is a promotional post for class IV employees. That being the 
position, the High Court was not justified in directing appointment of the 
writ petitioner as "fourth peon". But, if the school was entitled to have 
the post of "Daftary", certainly the appointment was to be made by 
promoting one of the three Class-IV employees, namely, Office Peon, 
B Office Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other 
class IV post in the school. It is for the Managing Committee of the school 
to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the 
concerned State Authorities. That ·way the claim of the wri.t petitioner 
could have been considered by the authorities, on being appropriately 
inoved by the school management. (877-C-D-E] 
c 
1.2. The Management of the respondent-institution is directed to 
move the concerned authorities for approval for the promotional 
appointment from class IV employee of the school. Simultaneously, it can 
also recommend for appointment of the incumbent for class IV post in 
accordance with law keeping in view the operative yardstick in force at 
D the time of the appointment. (877-F-G] 
State of Orissa and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Das and Anr., (2003) 10 
sec 4U, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1779 of 
E 2005. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30. l 0.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 12815 of 1999. 
Jana Kalyan Das for t~e Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AR:IJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
The factual background can be adumbrated concis~ly as fol.lows : 
G 
The respondent no. I filed a writ application before the Orissa High 
Court claiming that he was appointed as "fourth peon" by the Management 
of the concerned institution i.e. Samanta Singhar Higli School in district of 
Jaipur, Orissa (Respondent no. 2) which is an "aided educational institution" 
as defined under the Orissa Education Ad, I 969 (in short the 'Act') and 
H Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and 
STATEOFORISSA v. L. RAY [PASAYAT, J.] 
875 
Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 197 4 (in short A 
'Recruitment Rules'). It is not in dispute that if an institution is an aided 
educational institution, same is governed by the Act and rules framed 
thereunder. The Recruitment Rules are framed under the Act. As the 
functionaries of the State did not approve the appointment of respondent no. 
I holding the same to be beyond the prescribed yardstick, writ application B 
was filed for direction to the

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