http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRATAP KUMAR NAYAK

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This 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;      "In the  circumstances,  the  order      dated  11.11.1992   be  implemented      within 15  days from  the  date  of      receipt of  a copy  of this  order.      The 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."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Calling that  order is  question, this  appeal has been filed.      From 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. Therefore, 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.      In 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.