Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in an appeal by special leave, considered the validity of an order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack which had directed appointment of the respondent in a future vacancy. The appeal was filed by the State of Orissa, and the respondent did not appear despite service. The Tribunal's order dated March 2, 1995 in O.A. No.1499/93 was under challenge. The core factual background was that the person concerned had been appointed as a Hindi Teacher in a third post in an M.E. School; that post was not sanctioned, and the need for such appointment was not recognized by the management. The appellant State contended that the direction was invalid because the post was not sanctioned and government policy had decided to phase out Hindi teachers in M.E. Schools. The government letter dated May 1, 1992 stated that Hindi being a non-examinable subject in M.E. Schools, there was no need to allow existing Hindi teachers to continue further, and it was decided that Hindi teachers in M.E. Schools would be adjusted against third posts of teachers provided they possessed Matric C.T. qualification, with chances to acquire the qualification within specified periods. The Supreme Court framed the sole legal issue as whether the Tribunal's direction to appoint the respondent in a future vacancy was valid in law. The Court reasoned that since the post was not sanctioned and the government policy did not support continuation of Hindi teachers, the Tribunal was not right in issuing the direction. The Court did not go into the question of the respondent's qualification. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's direction was set aside, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment to Public Post - Tribunal's Direction for Future Vacancy - No specific statute cited; general service law principles - The Orissa Administrative Tribunal directed appointment of the respondent in a future vacancy as Hindi Teacher despite the post being unsanctioned and the government policy of May 1, 1992 deciding that Hindi is a non-examinable subject in M.E. schools and existing Hindi teachers need not continue; the Supreme Court held that the direction was invalid because there was no sanctioned post and the government had phased out the post; Held that the Tribunal was not right in giving the direction and the appeal was allowed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction issued by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to appoint the respondent in a future vacancy is valid in law?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the direction of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to appoint the respondent in a future vacancy was set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- A tribunal cannot direct appointment against a future vacancy when no sanctioned post exists
- government policy phasing out a post invalidates any direction to fill it
- appointment must be to a sanctioned post
- government letter prescribing qualifications for adjustment of Hindi teachers is relevant
- appeal allowed because direction was contrary to government policy
