Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusSUKANTI DEBI

Citation: 1996 INSC 1427
Decided: 2 December 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

The Tribunal’s direction to appoint the respondent against a future vacancy was ultra vires and therefore invalid.

Summary

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the appointment of Sukanti Debi as a Hindi Teacher in a third post, even though the post was not sanctioned and the need for such an appointment was not recognised by the education department. The State of Orissa challenged the validity of that direction, contending that Hindi is a non‑examinable subject in M.E. schools and that existing Hindi teachers could be adjusted only against sanctioned third‑post vacancies, subject to qualification requirements. The Court examined the Government’s May 1 1992 letter which clarified the policy and noted that the respondent lacked the requisite qualifications and the post was not authorised. It held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering an appointment against a future vacancy that did not exist. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s direction set aside without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct an appointment against a future vacancy that was not a sanctioned post
Whether the appointment of a Hindi teacher in M.E. schools is permissible under the Government’s 1992 policy
Whether the lack of qualification of the respondent defeats the Tribunal’s direction

Subjects

service lawappointmentfuture vacancytribunal jurisdictionnon‑sanctioned postHindi teacherM.E. schoolsqualification requirementadministrative law

Judgment

A                        STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
                                          v.
                                 SUKANTI DEBI                                        '
                               DECEMBER 2, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

           Se1vice Law-Directio11 give11 by T1ibu11al for appointme11t against a
    funtre vaca11cy-Va/idity of-State of Orissa-M.E. Schools-Respo11dent ap-
    pointed in a third post as Hi11di Teacher which was not a sanctioned
C   post-Need for such an appointment 11ot recognised by Managemem--Govem-
    ment i11stntctions dated May 1, 1992-Direction that Hi11di being a non-Ex-
    aminable subject in M.E. Schools, there was no need to allow the existing
     Hi11di teachers in M.E. Schools to continue fwthe1'-fleld direction issued by
     Tribunal to appoim respondent against a future vacancy was not light.

D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15712 of
    1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.95 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal at Cuttack, Orissa in O.A. No 1499 of 1993.

E           Ms. Kirti Mishra for the Appellants.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Delay condoned.

F           Leave granted.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa
    Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack, made on March 2, 1995 in OA No.
    1499/93. Though the respondent was served on September 30, 1996, she
G   did not appear. Therefore, we adjourned the matter by pcoceecijngs dated
    October 28, 1996 to see whether she appears or is represented through
    counsel. Even today, she has not appeared.

          The only question is : whether the direction issued by the Tribunal
    to appoint him in future vacancy is valid in law? It is seen that the third
H   respondent came to be appointed in a third post as Hindi Teacher which
                                       434
                          STATEv.SUKANTI DEBI                             435

was not sanctioned post; nor was the need for such an appointment A
recognised by the management. It is also stated that he was not qualified
for the post. We need not go into the question of his qualification. Suffice
it would be to state that the Government in their letter dated May 1, 1992
have stated as under :

          "I am directed to invite a reference to Go\t. Education Department    B
          Letter No. 13409, dated 17.3.1992 and to inform you that Hindi
          being a non-Examinable subject in M.E. Schools, there is no need
          to allow the existing Hindi teachers in M.E. Schoo], to continue
          further. Therefore, it was decided that the Hindi teachers who are
          ... in M.E. Schools will be adjusted against the third post of        C
          teachers in M.E. Schools provided they possessed Matric C.T.
          Qualification. In case any of them not ... C. T. Qualification he
          should be given chance tc acquire C.T. Qualification as in service
          candidate by summer vacation ... he will be allowed untrained scale
          of pay till then. In case any one is non-Matric he should be given
          the chance to acquire an equal C.T. Qualification. In case of         D
          former, the qualification would be acquired within three years for
          issue of order and in case the of non-Matriculation qualification
          should be acquired within period of Five Years."

        In view of the above, the Tribunal was not right in giving the direc-
                                                                                E
tion.

        The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search