Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Physical Education Teacher Based on Continuous Service: Bichitrananda Behera vs. State of Orissa (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 902
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a teacher’s continuous service be disregarded due to disputes over the legitimacy of the managing committee that appointed him? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Physical Education Teacher (PET) in a school in Odisha. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant’s appointment, made by a managing committee whose legitimacy was later questioned, should be upheld over the claim of another individual who asserted his appointment by a different committee. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, prioritized the continuous service of the appellant and the lack of evidence supporting the other claimant’s active service. The judgment was authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with Justice Vikram Nath concurring.

Case Background

The Gram Panchayat High School, Sailo, was established in 1987 and recognized by the authorities. In 1990, the first Managing Committee was formed, and a retired government school PET was appointed as a temporary measure in 1991. The Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, reconstituted the Managing Committee in December 1992, but this was soon challenged.

The Managing Committee formed on December 15, 1992, appointed the appellant, Bichitrananda Behera, as a PET on May 14, 1994. However, the High Court had issued a stay order against the reconstitution of the committee. This stay was vacated in 1995. Subsequently, the reconstitution of the Managing Committee was again challenged in 1996. The High Court quashed the approval of the new committee in 1999, directing the Inspector of Schools to manage the school.

Later, when applications for block grants were invited, the Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, including the appellant, in 2005. This approval was challenged by Respondent No. 5, who claimed to have been appointed as PET in 1993 by a different Managing Committee.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Respondent No. 5 filed a case before the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, challenging the approval of the appellant’s appointment. The Tribunal quashed the approval of the appellant and directed the approval of Respondent No. 5’s appointment. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Orissa, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision. This led to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case was adjudicated under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, which deals with disputes related to the approval of appointments in educational institutions. The Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, particularly Rule 16, was also considered, which pertains to the qualifications for teachers and staff in aided institutions.

The Court also considered the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, which governs the release of block grants to aided educational institutions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that his appointment on 14.05.1994 was valid as it was made by the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992, which was functioning under a stay order from the High Court.
• He contended that he was duly qualified and had been continuously working since his appointment.
• The appellant pointed out that Respondent No. 5 had failed to provide any evidence of continuous service from 1993 to 2005.
• He argued that Respondent No. 5’s appointment was fabricated, as it was made just before the High Court’s stay order and that he was working in another school during the relevant period.
• The Inspector of Schools had verified the records and approved the appellant’s appointment for block grant.
• The appellant argued that the High Court misinterpreted the term ‘Competent Management’ from the order dated 23.07.1999.
• He also argued that Respondent No. 5 did not possess the required qualifications at the time of his alleged appointment.

State’s Submissions:

• The State supported the appellant’s case, asserting that the appellant’s appointment was valid and based on verified records.

Respondent No. 5’s Submissions:

• Respondent No. 5 argued that his appointment by the Managing Committee constituted on 28.12.1992 was valid, as the High Court had recognized it as the competent authority in its order dated 23.07.1999.
• He claimed that the appellant’s appointment was illegal without the termination of his service.
• Respondent No. 5 contended that he had acquired the necessary training qualification in 1996, which was permissible for in-service candidates.
• He argued that even if he had worked in another school, his appointment in the present school could not be nullified.
• He submitted that the appellant’s long service would not validate an invalid appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the appointment of the appellant as PET should be upheld based on his continuous service and the validity of the appointing committee, or whether the claim of Respondent No.5 should be upheld.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court used Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648* to explain the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that while continuing wrongs can be addressed even after a delay, this does not apply when it affects the settled rights of third parties.
• The Court applied the principles of delay, laches, and acquiescence as defined in Union of India v N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25*, noting that these concepts are overlapping but distinct, and that delay can become laches when it involves unreasonable negligence in pursuing a claim.
• The Court also relied on Chairman, State Bank of India v M J James, (2022) 2 SCC 301* to underscore that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent and that the doctrine of delay and laches is applied to non-suit litigants who approach the court belatedly without justification.
• The Court stated that the decision in Bibekananda Das v State of Orissa, 1997 (II) OLR 122* was not relevant to the case as it did not delve into the issue of eligibility for appointment on the post of PET on the relevant date(s).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Continuous Service of the Appellant: The Court emphasized that the appellant had been continuously working since his appointment in 1994, and his service was documented in the school register and verified by the Inspector of Schools.
• Lack of Evidence for Respondent No. 5: The Court noted that Respondent No. 5 had failed to provide any evidence of continuous service and that his appointment was questionable.
• Delay and Laches: The Court highlighted that Respondent No. 5 had not approached any forum for over 12 years, which was considered a significant delay and sign of acquiescence.
• State’s Support: The State’s support for the appellant’s case also weighed in the Court’s decision.
• Respondent No. 5’s Employment Elsewhere: The Court considered the fact that Respondent No. 5 was found to be working in another school during the relevant period.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The court gave more weight to the factual circumstances of the case, such as the continuous service of the appellant and the lack of evidence of service by Respondent No. 5, than to the legal arguments about the validity of the appointing committees.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the Managing Committee of 15.12.1992 was not valid due to the High Court’s stay order. However, it noted that the committee was functioning under the interim order and that the High Court had not invalidated any actions taken by it. The Court also considered the argument that Respondent No. 5 was appointed by a competent authority, but found that his claim was not supported by evidence and was significantly delayed.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that continuous service should be given weight, especially when there is a lack of evidence supporting the competing claim. The Court also considered the principle of delay and laches, stating that a party should not be allowed to assert a claim after a long delay, especially when it affects the rights of others.

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with Justice Vikram Nath concurring, stated:

“On the factual scenario, the appellant was appointed by the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 and given appointment on 14.05.1994 during the time when a stay order granted by the High Court in favour of the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 was continuing i.e., since 11.01.1993. Thus, the appointment made by the said Managing Committee (constituted on 15.12.1992) of the appellant cannot be labelled illegal per se nor termed void ab initio.”

“On the legal aspect, since the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 continued for its full term by virtue of the interim order of the High Court dated 11.01.1993 and even in the final order disposing of the case on 23.07.1999, no adverse comment made on actions taken by the said Managing Committee, coupled with the fact that the appellant continued to discharge the duties on the post right since his appointment on 14.05.1994, which is documented in the school register and verified by the Inspector of Schools, with his having been sent on election duty thrice, in our view, are sufficient pointers that the appellant had actually worked and continued on the post.”

“On an overall circumspection, thus, in the present case the Respondent No.5 should have been non-suited on the ground of delay and laches, which especially in service matters, has been held consistently to be vital, juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence.”

Key Takeaways

• Continuous service is a significant factor in determining the validity of an appointment, especially in service matters.
• A party cannot assert a claim after a long delay, especially when it affects the rights of others.
• The absence of evidence supporting a claim can be detrimental to the party making it.
• The Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, even when the main claim is rejected.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to grant a lump-sum of INR 3 lakhs to Respondent No. 5. It also directed that any monies paid to Respondent No. 5 should not be recovered. This direction was made under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and was specified not to be a precedent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in service matters, continuous service with proper documentation and verification is a significant factor in determining the validity of an appointment. The judgment also reinforces the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that a party cannot assert a claim after a long delay, especially when it affects the rights of others. The Court’s decision to grant compensation to the Respondent No. 5, despite rejecting his claim, highlights its commitment to ensuring complete justice. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal. The Court upheld the appointment of the appellant as PET based on his continuous service and the lack of evidence supporting Respondent No. 5’s claim. The Court also directed the State of Odisha to provide a lump-sum compensation to Respondent No. 5, without setting a precedent. This judgment underscores the importance of continuous service and the principle of delay and laches in service matters.