Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a special leave petition against an Orissa High Court order dated 18 September 1996 in OJC No.2148/95. The petitioner, a clerk in an aided educational institution, claimed appointment and approval as a teacher after being kept in-charge of a teaching post. She had initially been appointed as a clerk on 1 June 1974 against a vacancy. On 9 August 1990, she was kept in-charge of a teaching post, and subsequently she claimed that she was discharging the duties of a teacher. When the authorities did not appoint her as a teacher, she filed OJC No.671/91 on 27 March 1992, and pending disposal, the High Court granted an interim direction. Pursuant to that direction, the Director granted provisional approval on 4 August 1992. A fifth respondent challenged her entitlement to the post by filing a writ petition on 15 April 1993, resulting in the matter being directed for reconsideration. The Director, by proceeding dated 4 March 1995, refused approval. The petitioner then filed OJC No.2148/95 before the Orissa High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, relying on a Full Bench judgment in OJC No.5361/91 decided on 2 December 1994, which interpreted the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Education Institutions) Rules, 1974, particularly Section 2(b). The Full Bench held that initial appointment must be to a teaching post and that a clerk, even if directed to discharge teaching duties, cannot claim the post of teacher. The Full Bench also directed that all pending cases be dealt with in accordance with the Rules, while finalised cases should not be reopened. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that her case was not pending because the Director had already granted provisional approval, and therefore she must be appointed as a teacher. The Supreme Court found no force in this contention. It observed that appointment to a post must be in accordance with the Rules and that Section 2(b) defined post; since the petitioner was working in a clerical post, she was not entitled to be approved. The mere fact that she was kept in-charge of a teaching post did not confer any right to appointment to a teaching post because she was not initially appointed to a teaching post. The provisional approval granted pursuant to the High Court's interim direction was subject to the final appointment and could not be construed as a ratification of her appointment as teacher. The Court referred to its own recent decision in Krishna Chandra v. State of Orissa & Ors. (CA No.13755/96 decided on 1 November 1996) and found it consistent with this view. It held that there was no illegality in the High Court's order warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Initial Appointment to Teaching Post - Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Education Institutions) Rules, 1974, Section 2(b) - The petitioner was appointed as a clerk and later kept in-charge of a teaching post; she claimed approval as a teacher. The Supreme Court held that initial appointment must be to a teaching post and a clerk merely discharging teaching duties cannot claim the post. Held that the High Court correctly applied the Full Bench interpretation and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Provisional Approval - Effect of Interim Direction - Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Education Institutions) Rules, 1974, Section 2(b) - Provisional approval granted by the Director pursuant to a High Court interim direction was subject to final appointment and could not be construed as ratification of the petitioner's appointment as teacher. Held that provisional approval did not confer any right to the teaching post. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a clerk initially appointed against a clerical vacancy and later kept in-charge of a teaching post could claim approval and appointment as a teacher under Section 2(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Education Institutions) Rules, 1974; and whether provisional approval granted pursuant to an interim direction of the High Court could confer any right to such post.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, finding no illegality in the High Court's order. It held that the petitioner, being initially appointed as a clerk, was not entitled to approval as a teacher under the Rules, and the provisional approval did not confer any right.
Law Points
- Appointment to a post must be in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules
- initial appointment to a teaching post is essential
- merely being kept in-charge of teaching post does not confer right
- provisional approval subject to final appointment does not ratify
- pending cases to be decided as per Full Bench interpretation
