Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRATAP KUMAR NAYAK
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order
dated 15.1.1996 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, made
in M.P. No. 3473/95. The respondent was initially appointed
as non-formal Facilitator under a non-formal Education
Programme, a scheme sponsored by the Central Government for
imparting primary education to the children in the age group
of 16 to 12 years. The State Government issued on October
10, 1990 guidelines for appointment of Facilitators as
regular primary school teachers. In the said guidelines, the
Facilitators have to complete three years of service and
must have acquired C.T. training by 31.13.1990. When the
respondent filed an O.A. in the Tribunal, the Tribunal had
given direction to the appellant to consider his case
according to rules. It is not in dispute that by proceedings
dated May 19, 1993, his case was considered and he was not
fund eligible under the rules. The respondent field contempt
proceedings in the Tribunal stating that the appellants have
deliberately violated the orders passed by the Tribunal. In
the impugned order, it is stated that;
"In the circumstances, the order
dated 11.11.1992 be implemented
within 15 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
The applicant be given appointment
like his juniors who have been
given such appointment. If none of
his juniors have been given
appointment, then the Respondents
would take action as per the
prevailing instructions by giving
him notional appointment as
Sikhyakarmi in accordance with the
Circular dated 24.9.1992 and after
determining as Sikhyakarmi, give
appointment to him as regular
primary school teacher, as is being
done in cases is Sikhyakarmis."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Calling that order is question, this appeal has been
filed.
From the order, it is clear that the Tribunal has gone
wrong in giving direction contrary to the directions issued
in the main order. Since direction was issued to consider
his case according to rules, necessarily, the appellants
were required to consider the claim of the respondent in
accordance with the guidelines. Obviously, since the
respondent had not fulfilled the qualification prescribed in
the guidelines, he could not be appointed. Accordingly, his
case was rejected. The impugned direction is contrary to the
direction issued on the earlier occasion and the rules.
Therefore, in a review petition, the Tribunal could not have
gone behind the main order and issued fresh directions. When
we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to state
whether any of the juniors of the respondent have been
appointed, it is stated that none of the juniors have been
appointed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
stated that some of the persons who did not fulfil the
qualifications are being appointed and, therefore, it is
contrary to the direction issued by the Tribunal. We find no
force in the contention. Admittedly, they are not juniors to
the respondent and we do not know under what circumstances
their appointment case to be made. But the learned counsel
for the appellants has stated that after the superannuating
of number of teachers some vacancies have arisen; a
seniority list of teachers has been prepared; the name of
the respondent is also included in the seniority list; his
case would be considered as and when the vacancies arise and
he would be appointed accordingly.
In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is
allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside. The
statement made by the learned counsel for the State stands
recorded. No costs.