http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BANOLATA MOHAPATRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/05/1999

BENCH: S.  RAJENDRA BABU., S.N. PHUKAN.

JUDGMENT:

S.N.PHUKAN.J

       Respondent No.  4 filed a writ petition  before  the High  Court  regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant.  The writ petition was allowed  by judgment dated 01.03.1995  passed  in  O.J.C.    No.  867 of 1990.  Thereafter review petition no.  76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996.  One  civil  appeal has  been  filed  before  this  Court  against the above two orders.  Another separate vrit petition  was  filed  by  the appellant  before  the  High  Court  which was registered as O.J.C.  No.1874 of 1996.  By order dated 02.05.96  the  said writ petition  was  dismissed.    Against  the said order of dismissal the second appeal  has  beei^  filed.    Both  the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.

       To  appreciate the contentions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.

       The appellant and respondent No.  4 joined the  post of  lecturer  in economics in the college namely Kamla Nehra Women’s College, Bhubaneswar on the same day i.e 27.07.1979. The college became eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government in the year 1982-83 under relevant rules.  As the appellant and respondent No.  4 were not qualified  as  they did  not  have  the  requisite  percentage of marks in M.A., grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in economics  was  not released.   The  appellant  improved  the  marks and secured first class and.    therefore,  she  was  qualified  to  get grant-in-aid for  the  post.    It may be stated that second post of lecturer in economica was  also  sanctioned  bv  the Government in  the  year  198,7.    On 8.7.87 the University condoned the deficiency of qualification of respondent  No.4 and the  State  Government  did the same on 27.11.1986.  The Governing Body of the College passed the  resolution  fixing the  seniority between the appellant and respondent No.4 and treated respondent No.4 to be senior and an enquiry was also conducted by the Director  of  higher  education  who  found respondent No.  4 to besenior.  The Minister of Education of the Government accepted the resolution of the Governing Body and  ordered  respondent  No.4 to be senior to the appellant vide order dated 19.01.89 As grant-in-aid was not  released, respondent No.   4 approached the High Court by filing first writ petition namely O.J.C.  No.  867 of 1990.  The Division Bench of the High Court inter alia held that respondent No.4 must be appointed against the first post of lecturer in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

College  and  thereafter  she  would  be entitled to receive grantin-aid.  The direction  was  issued  to  the  concerned authority to release the grant-in-aid.

       Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

       It   may  be  stated  that  before  this  Court  the appellant has filed  number  of  documents  which  were  not produced  before  the  High  Court and as such we ignore all these documents.

       It has been urged that  though  both  appellant  and respondent  No.4  joined  on  the same day but the appellant joined in forenoon and  respondent  No.4  in  afternoon  and further  the letter of appointment to the appellant was sent earlier.  We are of the opinion that these are  not  at  all relevant  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  question of seniority.

       The appellant placed  reliance  on  a  copy  of  the resolution  of  the  Governing  Body  dated  15.12.1979 vide annexure-A to the petition.  In the said resolution the name of the appellant had been shown against the  first  post  in economics in  the  college and the name of respondent No.  4 against the second post.  In the counter filed on behalf  of the  College  namely  respondent  Nos.3 and 4, a copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexure-.2 and from the said resolution we find that the appellant was shown against  the second post and the respondent No.  4 against the first post of lecturer.   As resolutions of the Governing Body are kept by the College  and  the  above  resolution  has  been  duly produced  by  the college, it has to be accepted and not the copy of the resolution annexed by the appellant.    We  find from the  judgment  of  the  High Court In O.J.C No.  867/90 that the Court called for relevant file and on perusing  the record  it was found that Minister of Education accepted the resolution of the Governing Body holding that respondent No. 4 was senior to the appellant.  The Court  also  noted  that the  enquiry  report of the Director, which was available on record, also indicated the same postion.    The  Court  also perused the resolution of the Governing Body and came to the finding  that  Governing  Body also decided the seniority as claimed by respondent No .4.  In view of the  above  finding of  the  High Court we are not at all inclined to accept the submission made on behalf  of  the  appellant  that  as  per resolution  of the Governing Body appellant was shown senior to respondent No .4.

       Reliance  was  placed  on  the  report  of  the  Dy. Director of Education in which appellant was shown senior to respondent No  .4.    As  recorded  by  the  High  Court the Director of the Education also examined this question as per direction of the State  Government  and  after  hearing  the parties  submitted  a  report  which  has  been  annexed  as Annexure-I to the counter filed by respondent Nos.  3 and 4. We find from the said report that not only the appellant and respondent No.  4 were present at the time  of  enquiry  but also the  Dy.    Director  who submitted the earlier report. The Director after considering  all  aspects  gave  a  clear finding that  respondent  No.  4 was senior to the appellant and this report of the Director had  been  accepted  by  the High Court.    In view of the above report we have to ignore the report of the Dy.  Director on which reliance was placed by the appellant, as  he  was  subordinate  officer  to  the Director and he was also present when Director conducted the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

enquiry.

       The next  point  urged  is that as respondent No.  4 was not qualified she had no right to claim the  benefit  of grant-in-aid   and   further   as   the  deficiency  of  the qualification was condoned by the University as well as  the State  Government  subsequently  she  had  no right to claim grant-in-aid under the first post.  We find no force in  the submission  as till the deficiency was condoned the services of the parties were not approved by the State Government for the first post of lecturer for grant-in-aid.

       The State Government is a final authority to  accord sanction for giving grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in the  college  in  question,  therefore,  the decision of the State Government is binding on the parties and also  on  the college unless  it is arbitrary or contrary to any rule.  We do not fine any  fault  in  the  order  of  the  Government. Therefore,  we hold that the High Court decided the question rightly and no interference is called  for.    However,  the appellant may be entitled to get benefit for the second post provided she is otherwise qualified.

       In  the  result  both  the  appeals  are  dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.