PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUKANTI DEBI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Delay condoned.
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 N.1499/93. Though the respondent was served on September 30, 1996, he did not appear. Therefore, we adjourned the matter by proceedings dated October 28, 1996 to see whether he appears or is represented through counsel. Even today, he 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 respondent came to be appointed in a third post as Hindi Teacher which was not sanctioned post; nor was the need for such an appointment 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 Govt. In Education
Department 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 neek to allow the existing Hindi
teachers in M.E. Schools 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
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 to 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 former,
the qualification would be acquired
within three years for issued of
order and in case the non-
Matriculation qualification should
be acquired within period of Five
Years.
In view of the above, the Tribunal
was not right in giving the
direction.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.