Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher Appointed Due to Error: State of Odisha vs. Kamalini Khilar (28 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2021
Citation: (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL No.) ______of 202 1) (Diary No. 24414/2020 )
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can an appointment made due to an administrative error be reversed to accommodate the rightfully selected candidate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a primary school teacher in Odisha. The core issue revolved around whether the termination of a teacher, who was appointed due to a mistake, was justified when the rightful candidate claimed her position. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

In 1996, the State of Odisha initiated a recruitment process for primary school teachers. The District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II, was responsible for determining the number of vacancies and the reservation for different categories. The District Employment Exchange sponsored candidates, including Kamalini Khilar (Respondent No. 1), for the post.

Kamalini Khilar’s name was sponsored, and she was called for a viva-voce examination. She secured the 22nd position in the SEBC (Women) category, while there were only 16 vacancies in that category. However, she was appointed on 04.04.1998 because the candidate who secured the 16th position, Minati Pradhan (Respondent No. 2), did not join within the stipulated time. Kamalini Khilar joined on 20.04.1998.

Minati Pradhan, the candidate who was originally at the 16th position, filed a representation stating that she did not receive her appointment order, and that the order was wrongly addressed. This led to a case before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which directed the authorities to appoint Minati Pradhan. Consequently, Kamalini Khilar’s services were terminated on 16.04.2002, and Minati Pradhan was appointed.

Aggrieved by her termination, Kamalini Khilar filed another application before the Tribunal, which was allowed. The Tribunal ordered her reinstatement. However, the High Court quashed the Tribunal’s direction to create a supernumerary post but directed the authorities to appoint Kamalini Khilar in a vacant position. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Orissa Administrative Tribunal initially ruled in favor of Minati Pradhan (Respondent No. 2), directing her appointment and the removal of the person appointed in her place. Subsequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Kamalini Khilar (Respondent No. 1), ordering her reinstatement. The High Court then partially overturned the Tribunal’s order, quashing the direction to create a supernumerary post but directing Kamalini Khilar’s appointment in a vacant position. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court by the State of Odisha.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the State of Odisha’s resolution dated 12.03.1996, which outlines the procedure for recruiting government teachers in primary schools. The resolution specified that:

• Vacancies were to be filled through direct recruitment.
• The number of vacancies for each reserved category was to be determined.
• Separate lists were to be prepared for each reserved category.
• Appointments were to be made strictly in the order in which names appeared in the respective select lists.
• Clause 17a of the resolution stated that the District Inspector was to make appointments against the sanctioned posts strictly in the order in which the names occurred in the respective select lists.

The Supreme Court also considered principles of natural justice, specifically the concept of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), and the implications of orders passed by competent tribunals.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1 after interfering with the Tribunal’s order.
• Respondent No. 1 was appointed only because Respondent No. 2 did not join.
• The services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated to comply with the Tribunal’s order.
• There is no provision for making any appointment as the method of appointment has been altered to absorption from trained junior teachers.
• The selection was based on the resolution dated 12th March, 1996, which mandated separate lists for each reserved category.
• The Respondent No. 1 was 34 years, 5 months and 17 days old as on 01.01.1996 and got the relaxation as she had applied as SEBC (Women) in the Category. She secured 22nd rank and the Respondent No.2 was at S.no. 16.
• Respondent No. 1 was aware of the separate lists and never challenged the selection procedure.
• The vacancy occurred prior to 30.06.1996.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• The termination of her services was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious.
• Respondent No. 1 was not a party in the O.A. filed by the Respondent No. 2.
• The Tribunal had not directed the removal of Respondent No. 1 but only the person who had taken the place of Respondent No. 2.
• The Respondent No. 1 belongs to SEBC Category and had secured 112.75 marks which was more than what the other persons obtained.
• The order adversely affecting Respondent No. 1 should not have been passed as she was not a party to the earlier proceeding.
• The government should have challenged the order passed in the earlier proceeding.
• There is a bar under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• There were persons who secured lesser marks than the Respondent No.1 who are allowed to be retained in service and it was the Respondent No. 1 who was harassed and victimised.
• The delay in litigation is solely attributed to the government.
• Her career was spoiled due to the illegal termination, and she suffered financial hardship.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• Whether the termination of the services of Respondent No. 1 was justified in light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 650 of 2000 and the fact that she was appointed in place of Respondent No. 2.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors AIR 1991 SC 101, stating that it dealt with the constitutionality of dispensing with the service of a permanent employee without an inquiry, which was not the case here.
• The Court distinguished the cases of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (1979) 2 SCC 80 and Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Ors (1980) 4 SCC 443, stating that they related to industrial law and illegal termination of a workman, which was not relevant here.
• The Court distinguished the case of Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University and Ors AIR 1998 SC 3261, stating that it dealt with termination of a lecturer without notice, and the facts were distinguishable.
• The Court distinguished the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Ors (2013) 10 SCC 324, stating that it dealt with wrongful termination and reinstatement with back wages, which was not applicable here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the binding nature of the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 650 of 2000. The Court recognized that the termination of Respondent No. 1 was a direct consequence of the need to comply with this order, which aimed to rectify an administrative error that had prevented the rightful candidate, Respondent No. 2, from joining. The Court also emphasized that the separate merit lists for different categories were crucial in determining that Respondent No. 1 was the junior-most candidate in the SEBC (Women) category and was only appointed due to the non-joining of Respondent No. 2. The Court also took into consideration that the Respondent No. 1 was given the benefit of age relaxation by applying under the SEBC (Women) category. However, the court also noted that the Respondent No. 1 should have been given a notice before termination, but considering the facts of the case, it was not fatal.

Fact:Law:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Orders passed by competent tribunals are binding on the parties and must be complied with.
• Appointments made due to administrative errors can be rectified, even if it means terminating the services of an employee who has already joined.
• Separate merit lists for different categories must be respected in recruitment processes.
• While principles of natural justice are important, they may not be fatal if the termination is a direct consequence of a binding order.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 in any vacancy available.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an appointment is made due to an administrative error and a competent tribunal orders the appointment of the rightful candidate, the services of the person appointed due to the error can be terminated to comply with the tribunal’s order. This case clarifies that such termination is not arbitrary but a necessary consequence of rectifying the error and adhering to the binding order of the tribunal. This case also upholds the importance of following the merit list and the category-wise reservation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Odisha, setting aside the High Court’s order to appoint Kamalini Khilar. The Court held that the termination of Kamalini Khilar’s services was unavoidable due to the binding order of the Tribunal and that she was appointed in place of the rightful candidate. The Court emphasized that the order of the Tribunal was binding and that the termination was not arbitrary but a necessary consequence of rectifying the error and adhering to the binding order of the tribunal. The Supreme Court also upheld the importance of following the merit list and the category-wise reservation.