Elementary Education & Ors Vs. Pratap Kumar Nayak  INSC 5 (6 January
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D E
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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;
the circumstances, the order dated 11.11.1992 be implemented within 15 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
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."
Calling that order is question, this appeal has been filed.
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.
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.
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.