Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal by special leave against an order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated January 15, 1996, in a contempt proceeding arising from a service matter concerning appointment of non-formal facilitators as regular primary school teachers. The respondent was initially appointed as a non-formal Facilitator under a Central Government sponsored non-formal education programme for imparting primary education to children in the specified age group. The State Government issued guidelines on October 10, 1990, prescribing that Facilitators must have completed three years of service and acquired C.T. training by 31.13.1990 to be considered for appointment as regular primary school teachers. When the respondent approached the Tribunal, it initially directed the appellants to consider his case according to rules. The appellants considered his case by proceedings dated May 19, 1993, and found him not eligible under the rules. The respondent then filed contempt proceedings alleging deliberate violation of the Tribunal's orders. In the impugned order, the Tribunal directed implementation of an earlier order dated November 11, 1992, within 15 days and directed that the respondent be given appointment like his juniors, or if none of his juniors had been appointed, then notional appointment as Sikhyakarmi in accordance with Circular dated September 24, 1992, and thereafter appointment as regular primary school teacher. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had gone wrong in giving a direction contrary to the directions issued in the main order. Since the earlier direction was to consider the case according to rules, the appellants were required to consider the claim in accordance with the guidelines. As the respondent had not fulfilled the prescribed qualifications, he could not be appointed, and his case was rightly rejected. The Court held that in a review petition, the Tribunal could not go behind the main order and issue fresh directions. When asked, counsel for the appellants stated that none of the respondent's juniors had been appointed. The respondent's counsel contended that some persons not fulfilling qualifications had been appointed, but the Court found no force in this because those persons were not juniors to the respondent and the circumstances of their appointment were not known. The State counsel also stated that after superannuation of teachers, vacancies had arisen, a seniority list had been prepared, the respondent's name was included in that list, and his case would be considered as and when vacancies arose. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and recorded the statement made by the State counsel. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Contempt/Review Jurisdiction - Tribunal cannot go behind its main order and issue fresh directions contrary to the earlier direction and rules - Orissa Administrative Tribunal proceedings - The Tribunal initially directed consideration of respondent's case according to rules; it later in contempt proceedings directed appointment despite respondent not fulfilling qualifications. Held that in review or contempt, the Tribunal could not enlarge the scope and grant relief contrary to the main order and the eligibility guidelines (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Eligibility for Appointment - Facilitator must have three years service and C.T. training by 31.13.1990 to be considered for regular primary school teacher - State Government guidelines dated October 10, 1990 - Respondent did not fulfil these qualifications; his case was rejected on May 19, 1993; Supreme Court held that no direction for appointment could be given when eligibility conditions are not met, and no juniors had been appointed (Paras 1-2). C) Service Law - Seniority and Future Consideration - State counsel's statement that respondent is included in the seniority list and will be considered as vacancies arise recorded - Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Tribunal order, and recorded the statement with no order as to costs (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, in contempt proceedings, could issue directions contrary to its earlier order and the prescribed eligibility guidelines for appointment of Facilitators as regular primary school teachers.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated January 15, 1996 set aside; statement made by counsel for State recorded; no costs.
Law Points
- Tribunal cannot in contempt or review proceedings go behind its main order and issue fresh directions contrary to rules
- appointment to public post must be according to prescribed eligibility
- candidate not fulfilling three years service and C.T. training cannot be appointed
- inclusion in seniority list and consideration against future vacancies is sufficient
