STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR DAS AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 29-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJENDRA KUMAR DAS AND ANR. 
AUGUST 29, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Orissa Education Act, 1969/0rissa Education (Recruitment and 
C Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided 
Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974-Appointment of Peon-In aided 
educational institutions-State Approval-Denial of-On the ground that 
the approval was beyond prescribed yardstick provided by the statute-
Writ petition-High Court directed to accord approval equating it to the 
post of 'Daftary'-Plea that post of 'Daftary' being promotional post and 
D with higher pay scale, last entrant cannot claim the same-On appeal held: 
The claim of the class JV employees could have been considered by the 
State by promoting one of the existing Class IV employees as 'Daftary'. 
Respondents were appointed to the post of 'Peon' with aided 
E educational institutions as defined under Orissa Educational Act, 1969 
and under Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service 
of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) 
Rules, 1974. State did not approve the appointments. Respondents, 
claiming to have been appointed as 'fourth peon' filed writ petitions 
for direction to the concerned authorities to accord approval. High 
F Court equated the "fourth peon" with "Daftary" and held that the 
claim warra · ~d acceptance. 
In apperal to this Court State contended that there was no 
prescription of a 'fourth peon' in the yardstick prescribed; and that 
G the post of 'Daftary' being a promotional post and as it carried higher 
scale of pay, the last entrant could not claim the post of 'Daftary'. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court was not justified in directing approval of the 
H writ petitioners' services as "fourth peon". Post of "Daftary" carries 
146 
STATE v. R.K. DAS [PASAYAT, J.] 
147 
higher scale of pay and is a promotional post for class IV employees. If a A 
school was entitled to have a "Daftary", certainly the appointment was to 
be made by promoting one of lhe three persons i.e., Office Peon, Office 
Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other class 
IV post in the institution. It is for the Managing Committee of the 
institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval B 
of the concerned authorities. That way the claims of the writ petitioners 
could have been considered by the authorities, on being appropriately 
moved by the management. [150-C-E) 
2. The management of the concerned institution shall move the 
concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of C 
a class IV employee, as "Daftary". Simultaneoulsy, it can also 
recommend for appointment to the Class IV post, in case approval is 
accoreded to recommendation for appointment of "Daftary" on 
promotion. (150-F-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6844 of D 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.2000 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 13475 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6846, 6848, 6847, 6845 of 2003. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellants. 
E 
Yasobant Das, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, R.R. Kumar, F 
Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Arvind K. Tiwari, Sudarsh Menon, Manoj Kumar Das 
and Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. 
As in all these appeals basic factual matrix is the same, except that 
the dates are different, and the points of law involved belong to the same 
spectrum; they are disposed of by this common judgment. 
G 
, The factual background can be adumbrated concisely as follows: 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The responded no. I in each case filed a writ application before the 
Orissa High Court claiming that he was appointed as "fourth peon" by the 
management of the concerned institution, which is an "aided educational 
institution" as defined under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short the 
'Act') and Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of 
Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Instituti?ns) 
B Rules, 1974 (in short '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 
holding the same to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.