Supreme Court quashes reinstatement of illegally appointed teachers in Odisha: State of Odisha vs. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 415
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a state government be compelled to absorb teachers who were initially appointed by a school’s managing committee without following the due process of law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the State of Odisha and a group of teachers appointed in Aided Middle English (M.E.) Schools. The core issue revolved around the legality of these appointments and whether the teachers were entitled to be absorbed as government employees with retrospective effect. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, with the majority opinion authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case involves a group of Hindi teachers who were initially appointed in Aided M.E. Schools around 1988-89 by the respective Managing Committees of the schools. For instance, Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, the lead respondent, was appointed on June 21, 1988, and joined on June 23, 1988, as a Hindi teacher at Nrusingha Jena M.E. School. These appointments were made by the school’s Managing Committees.

On May 12, 1992, the Government of Odisha issued a resolution to take over all M.E. Schools in the state, effective from April 1, 1991. While the government took over most of the teaching and non-teaching staff as government servants, Hindi teachers were not included, leading to the automatic termination of their services. Aggrieved by this, Sulekh Chandra Pradhan approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack on July 2, 1993, arguing that he was not being absorbed despite possessing the required qualifications. The High Court directed the Director of Elementary Education to review the matter.

Subsequently, on January 7, 1994, the government clarified that the earlier letter regarding absorption applied only to teachers appointed against sanctioned posts and paid from government funds. The Deputy Director had clarified that there was no need to continue Hindi teachers, as Hindi was a non-examinable subject in M.E. Schools. However, on September 29, 1995, the government decided to adjust Hindi teachers appointed by the Managing Committees as Assistant Teachers in vacant posts, relaxing the qualification criteria for third teachers. This decision was later withdrawn on September 5, 1998.

Despite the withdrawal, some District Inspectors of Schools issued appointment orders on August 27, 1996, which were subsequently kept in abeyance on October 1, 1996, leading to the discontinuation of services of these teachers on November 4, 1996. Later, on July 7, 2009, the government again decided to adjust 137 Hindi teachers as Assistant Teachers against vacant posts. This led to appointments on March 31, 2011. However, a vigilance enquiry revealed that the 2009 letter was issued by suppressing the 1998 withdrawal letter. Consequently, the services of these teachers were terminated on March 15, 2014.

The teachers then approached the High Court, which set aside the termination on May 9, 2014, citing violation of natural justice principles. The teachers were reinstated on December 15, 2014, but were issued show-cause notices on July 22, 2015, and their services were again terminated on August 22, 2015. This led to the filing of Original Applications before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which were allowed on May 18, 2017, and January 30, 2018, directing the teachers to be reinstated as regular government servants from April 1, 2011. The High Court dismissed the State’s writ petitions against these orders on December 20, 2018, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”). These rules govern the procedure for appointing staff in aided educational institutions.

Rule 5 of the said Rules outlines the procedure for application to the Selection Board and appointment of staff in aided institutions. It states:

“5. Procedure of application to the Board and appointment of Staff in aided institutions –
(1)The Secretary of the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, of an Aided Educational Institution shall, on or before the thirty-first day of August every year apply to the Selection Board with copy of each application to the concerned Inspector of Schools in respect of Schools [Director of Higher Education] in respect of Colleges in such manner as the Selection Board may prescribe for selection of a candidate for appointment in the vacancy or vacancies in teaching post, and the concerned Inspector of Schools and [Director of Higher Education] shall process the applications so received and transmit the same to the Selection Board by thirtieth day of September every year with certificate of genuineness of the vacancy or vacancies along with a statement of the vacancy position in the Educational Institutions within his jurisdiction.”

This rule mandates that the Managing Committee of an aided institution must apply to the Selection Board for filling vacancies, and the Inspector of Schools must verify and forward these applications to the Selection Board.

Rule 6 of the said Rules specifies the procedure for the selection of candidates by the Selection Board:

“6. Procedure of selection of candidates –
(1) The Selection Board shall, at such intervals as it deems proper call for applications for various posts in respect of which vacancies are likely to arise in the course of the next one year in such manner as may be determined in the regulation of the Selection Board.
(2) The Selection Board shall conduct examinations including a viva voce examination of any candidate or all candidates with a view to determine their merit and suitability in the matter appointed in its regulations.”

This rule empowers the Selection Board to conduct examinations and interviews to determine the merit and suitability of candidates for appointment.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Odisha):

• The State argued that the High Court erred in stating that the State had not challenged the Tribunal’s order dated May 18, 2017. They clarified that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6557 of 2018 was indeed filed to challenge this order.
• The State contended that the High Court incorrectly stated that the teachers had served under the State Government for over two decades. The actual service period was much shorter, with significant portions being due to interim court orders.
• The appointments were made in violation of Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules, which prescribe a detailed procedure for appointments in aided educational institutions.
• The Tribunal failed to consider its earlier orders dated June 25, 2013, and September 23, 2013, where similar claims by Hindi teachers were rejected.
• The State pointed out that Antaryami Bal, whose application was allowed by the Tribunal on May 18, 2017, had a previous application rejected by the same Tribunal on April 12, 2012.

Arguments by the Respondents (Teachers):

• The teachers argued that the posts of Hindi teachers were filled by the Management on a non-grant basis, and therefore, the said Rules would not apply to them. They claimed the rules were applicable only to appointments made on a grant-in-aid basis.
• They contended that the State framed a policy for their absorption as a one-time measure, following the High Court’s direction in O.J.C. No. 3042 of 1993.
• They argued that their absorption was done after a detailed scrutiny and enquiry, and hence, their termination was illegal.

Arguments by the Interveners:

• The interveners argued that similar matters have been decided in their favor by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, with the Supreme Court also dismissing the Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s order. Therefore, the issue has reached finality, and the state cannot terminate their services.
• They also pointed out that despite their success in the Tribunal and High Court, they have not been reinstated.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The teachers’ argument that the rules wouldn’t apply to them because their posts were non-grant-in-aid was a novel attempt to circumvent the statutory appointment procedures. However, the court rejected it by stating that the rules apply to all aided educational institutions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issues that the court addressed can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the appointments of the respondent teachers were made in accordance with the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974.
2. Whether the teachers, appointed by the Managing Committee of Aided M.E. Schools without following the prescribed procedure, were entitled to be absorbed as government servants.
3. Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in ordering the reinstatement of the teachers, ignoring previous orders of the Tribunal and the statutory rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several legal authorities to arrive at its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

On the validity of appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions:

• Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse (Mrs) and others [1991] 3 SCC 246 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to support the principle that appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio.
• J & K Public Service Commission and others vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others [1994] 2 SCC 630 – Supreme Court of India. This case was used to reinforce the view that appointments made in violation of statutory rules are invalid.
• Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others [2008] 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to reiterate that appointments made in violation of statutory provisions are void from the beginning.
• Union of India and another vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh [2018] 15 SCC 463 – Supreme Court of India. This case was used to further support the principle that appointments made against the rules are void.

On the effect of dismissal of Special Leave Petition:

• Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another [2000] 6 SCC 359 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to clarify that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the High Court.

On the applicability of the said Rules:

• Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 – These rules were central to the case, outlining the procedure for appointing staff in aided educational institutions.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and authorities, held that the appointments of the teachers were illegal and not sustainable in law. The Court quashed the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, thereby dismissing the teachers’ claims for reinstatement.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse (Mrs) and others [1991] 3 SCC 246*, J & K Public Service Commission and others vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others [1994] 2 SCC 630*, Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others [2008] 10 SCC 1* and Union of India and another vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh [2018] 15 SCC 463* to hold that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory rules were void ab initio.
• The Court cited Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another [2000] 6 SCC 359* to clarify that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that appointments made in violation of statutory rules are void ab initio. The Court emphasized that the appointments of the teachers were made directly by the Managing Committees without following the procedure prescribed under the said Rules. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had failed to consider its earlier orders and that the High Court had not applied its mind to the facts of the case. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the teachers had not served for a long period as claimed by them, and the claim of having served for 20 years was factually incorrect. The Court also emphasized that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the High Court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (80%), particularly the violation of statutory rules. Factual aspects (20%), such as the misrepresentation of the service period, also played a role but were secondary to the legal issues.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Appointments made in violation of statutory rules are void from the beginning.
• Aided educational institutions must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure for appointing staff.
• The Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 apply to all aided educational institutions, regardless of the source of funding for the post.
• The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court does not imply approval of the High Court’s decision.
• Tribunals and High Courts must consider their earlier orders and apply their minds to the facts of the case.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of following due process in appointments in aided educational institutions. It sets a precedent that can be used to challenge irregular appointments in similar cases. It also clarifies that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the High Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than quashing the orders of the Tribunal and High Court and dismissing the original applications filed by the teachers.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment. The core issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the existing Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. The court did not discuss any specific amendments to the rules or any other legislation.