SIMANCHAL PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
STATE OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
Raju, J. -
(1.)The appellant herein, who lost before the High Court fighting his cause as fourth-respondent in a writ petition filed in the High Court by the fourth-respondent in this appeal has challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 4-9-1998 in OJC No. 3652 of 1996 wherein the Order dated 23-3-1996 passed by the Second Respondent herein according approval insofar as it related to the appellant in the category of non-teaching staff as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in Anchalika Mahavidyalaya Jagannath Prasad, Distt. Ganjam, came to be set aside.
(2.)The relevant and necessary facts for appreciating the respective claims of the parties before us are that the appellant herein was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the college with effect from 8-9-1990 and joined service on 8-9-1990. Since the college as part of its own staff 'pattern, had a junior clerk (the fourth-respondent herein and the writ petitioner in the High Court) and another person as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Typist for purposes of effectively manning and smooth running of the office, the appellant was stated to have been designated as Upper Division Clerk being senior among the others though it is said, for all purposes he was taken to be the Lower Division Clerk-cum-Typist discharging duties as such from the beginning. Before joining when the appellant pointed out about this designation as Upper Division Clerk, the college seems to have instructed the appellant to accept appointment giving at the same time an undertaking that he had no objection if the approval of the competent authorities for purposes of Grant-Aid was obtained as Lower Division Clerk or Lower Division Clerk-cum-Typist depending upon the sanction based on the staff pattern permissible and that may be accorded by the authorities for purposes of assessment of aid to the college. It is seen from the combined statement submitted by the college authorities to the Education Department, that the case of the appellant was submitted for approval as Junior Clerk - cum-Typist since that is the category of post to which the sanction could be accorded for the college as per the eligibility criteria laid down for the purpose. When the Second Respondent passed the Order dated 23-3-1996 according approval, as noticed above, the fourth-respondent herein filed the Writ Petition challenging the same by contending that the present appellant in this Court was only appointed as Upper Division Clerk or Head Clerk and it was the writ petitioner in the High Court, the present fourth-respondent, who was appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist and, therefore, the approval ought to have been of the appointment of the writ petitioner and not of the appellant. This stand of the fourth-respondent herein had the acceptance of the Division Bench of the High Court for the reason that if depending upon the students strength, the approval can only be of one Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, the writ petitioner who was appointed as such alone could have been approved and approval by the authorities of the present appellant is unwarranted and impermissible in law. While quashing the appointment of the present appellant, directions have been issued to the competent authorities to approve the appointment of fourth-respondent herein, within the stipulated time. Aggrieved, as noticed earlier, the present appeal has been filed.
(3.)Heard Shri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate, for the appellant and Shri Ashok Panda, Senior Advocate, for the fourth-respondent and Mrs. Kirti Misra, Advocate, for the State and its Authorities.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.