2021 INSC 0570            NON­REPORTABLE                                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5963­5964 OF 2021    (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.9302­9303/2019) State of Odisha & Ors.                     .…Appellant(s) Versus Arati Mohapatra                          ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J. 1. The   Appellant­State   of   Odisha   &   others   are   before   this Court   in   these   appeals   assailing   the   orders   dated   20.03.2018 and   06.12.2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Orissa   in   WP(C) No.22713/2014 and Review Petition No.230/2018. By the order passed   in   the   writ   petition,   the   learned   Division   Bench   of   the High   Court   has   set   aside   the   orders   passed   by   the   Odisha Page 1 of 11 Administrative   Tribunal,   Cuttack   Bench   in   O.A. No.2699(C)/2006 and M.P. No.729(C)/2006. 2. The   brief   facts   leading   to   the   present   round   of   litigation between   the   parties   has   the   genesis   in   the   selection   process which was initiated in the year 1996 for recruitment of primary school teachers in government schools, in the State of Odisha. Through   the   resolution   dated   12.03.1996   the   procedure   for recruitment   was   formulated   and   the   selection   process   was initiated.   Pursuant   thereto   a   list   consisting   of   379   candidates selected   for   appointment   was   published   on   31.01.1997.   The name   of   the   respondent   herein   was   indicated   at   Serial   No.301 and   it   had   depicted   that   the   respondent   had   secured   114.80 marks.   The   respondent   was   accordingly   appointed   as   an Assistant   Teacher   in   Singiri,   in   the   Pay   Scale   of   Rs.1080­30­ EB­30­1800.   The   respondent   no.1   had   joined   duty   on 30.07.1997.  3. When   this   was   the   position   a   group   of   aggrieved unsuccessful   candidates   approached   the   State   Administrative Tribunal   (for   short   ‘SAT’)   in   O.A.   No.2792(C)/1999   and analogous   petitions   alleging   irregularities   and   foul   play   in   the Page 2 of 11 selection   process.   The   SAT   having   considered   the   same, accepted the contention of the applicants and through the order dated 24.01.2001 directed the recruiting authority to prepare a fresh   select   list   category   wise.   Since   the   said   process   had   not been   completed,   one   of   the   applicants   Ms.   Prem   Lata   Panda filed   a   Contempt   Petition   No.382(C)/2001   before   the   SAT alleging   non­compliance   of   the   order   dated   24.01.2001.   The SAT, through the order  dated 02.12.2004 directed that a fresh select   list   be   prepared   within   four   months.   The   appellants herein,   in   compliance   thereto   prepared   a   fresh   selection   list dated 15.12.2004 and the appointments made were withdrawn in order to comply with the order.  4.     One Ms. Saillasuta Dei filed an application before the SAT in   O.A.No.305/2005  impugning   the   action  of   the   appellants  in withdrawing   the   appointments   and   in   that   light   sought   for strict   implementation   of   the   order   dated   24.01.2001   passed   in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and analogous matters. In that view, the appellants   appointed   a   Committee   on   08.09.2006   to   prepare   a fresh merit list as also a re­select list of candidates which was accordingly   prepared   and   approved   on   17.11.2006.   As   per   the Page 3 of 11 list   the   last   of   the   candidate   selected   in   the   general   category had secured 111.53 marks. The marks shown against the name of   the   respondent   was   109.86   due   to   which   the   appellants contended   that   the   respondent   was   not   entitled   to   continue   in service.  5. In that view, the respondent was terminated from service on   30.11.2006.   The   respondent   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by such   termination   filed   an   application   before   the   SAT   in   O.A. No.2699(C)/2006.   Certain   other   candidates   who   were terminated   from   service   either   due   to   the   criteria   of   the difference in marks or due to the fabrication of documents had also approached the SAT making out a grievance with regard to the   termination.   The   SAT   having   taken   note   of   the   rival contentions passed a common order dated 03.06.2014 wherein the   O.A.   No.2699(C)/2006   filed   by   the   respondent   herein   was also   disposed   of.   However,   in   the   course   of   the   order   the   SAT had taken note that the applicants before it have already been terminated   from   service   because   they   filed   forged certificates/documents and a vigilance case is pending. Hence, it ordered that a decision is to be taken after conclusion of the Page 4 of 11 vigilance case. In that view, it was observed that if the decision in   the   vigilance   case   goes   in   their   favour   they   would   be   at liberty to approach the departmental authorities for redressal of their grievance relating to reinstatement.  6.     The case of the respondent herein was also included in the above said order. Obviously, the said observation was an error insofar as the respondent is concerned since the termination of the   respondent   was   not   due   to   that   reason   but   due   to   the difference in  the marks  which  was noticed while  preparing  the fresh   re­selection   list.   The   respondent   therefore   filed   a   Review Petition   in   M.P.No.729(C)/2006   before   the   SAT   which   was disposed   of   by   the   order   dated   21.10.2014.   Though   the   said observation was deleted by  the review petition, the SAT having taken note that the marks shown in the re­selection list against the name of the respondent being  109.88 as against what was originally   shown   as   114.80   marks,   did   not   see   reason   to interfere with the termination order.  7. The respondent therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2014 in O.A. No.2699(C)/2006 and the order dated 21.10.2014 in M.P. No.729(C)/2006 approached the High Page 5 of 11 Court   in   the   abovestated   writ   petition.   The   High   Court   on taking   note   of   the   sequence   of   events,   took   into   consideration the marks which was originally awarded to the respondent i.e., 114.80   marks,   more   particularly   relying   on   the   details   of   the minutes   dated   31.01.1997   which   was   obtained   by   the respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (for   short   ‘RTI   Act’)   wherein   the   name   of   the   respondent appeared   at   Serial   No.301   as   she   had   been   awarded   114.80 marks.   The   learned   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court accordingly   directed   the   appellants   herein   to   treat   the respondent as having secured 114.80 marks in the selection list and   communicate   a   reasoned   order   to   the   respondent   within three   months.   The   review   filed   against   the   said   order   was dismissed keeping in view the limited scope available in review, rather   than   adverting   to   the   contentions   put   forth   on   merit   to seek   review.   It   is   in   that   light,   the   appellants   being   aggrieved are before this Court.   8. We have heard Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing   for   the   appellants,   Mr.   Ashok   Panigrahi,   learned counsel appearing for  the respondent and perused the appeals Page 6 of 11 papers including the written submission filed on behalf of both parties.   9. The sequence of the events noted above and the series of litigation   between   the   parties   including   the   challenge   to   the original   selection   list   by   a   group   of   unsuccessful   candidates which  led to  the  formation of a re­selection  committee and the preparation   of   re­selected   list   after   considering   the   matter afresh   is   not   in   serious   dispute.   Though   the   genesis   for   the earlier select list being cancelled and the re­selection list being published   was   the   allegation   made   by   the   unsuccessful candidates   in   O.A.   No.2792(C)/1999   and   analogous   petitions that there was foul play in the process, the fact that the select list   has   been   re­arranged   based   on   the   marks   obtained   is evident from the facts narrated above. It is also undisputed that the respondent is not one of those candidates against whom an allegation   is   made   with   regard   to   the   submission   of   fabricated documents   for   obtaining   appointment.   In   fact   this   aspect   is clear   from   the   order   dated   21.10.2014   passed   by   SAT   in   M.P. No.729(C)/2006.   In   the   said   order,   the   reason   to   justify   the termination   of   respondent   is   taken   note,   which   is   that   the Page 7 of 11 respondent   had   obtained   109.88   marks   and   was   accordingly placed   at   the   appropriate   spot   in   the   re­select   list.   The   said marks was lesser than the last selected candidate in the general category, who had obtained 111.53 marks.   10. Against   the   above   backdrop,   it   is   noticed   that   the   only reason   for   which   the   High   Court   has   intervened   and   directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent by reckoning the marks secured by her as 114.80 is by taking note of   the   information   secured   under   RTI   Act   relied   upon   by   the respondent,   wherein   the   minutes   dated   31.01.1997   indicated the   marks   obtained   by   the   respondent   as   114.80   marks   and she was placed at Serial No.301.  11. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   seeks   to   justify the   conclusion   reached   by   the   High   Court   since   according   to him   the   information   was   obtained   from   the   official   files   under the   RTI   Act   and   such   information   would   justify   that   the respondent   having   obtained   114.80   marks   is   entitled   to   be selected,   which   action   has   been   directed   by   the   High   Court   to be taken by the petitioners herein.  Page 8 of 11 12.           The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   would,   on   the other hand, contend that the error in the conclusion reached by the   High   Court   is   due   to   the   fact   that   the   reliance   was   placed on   the   list   which   was   prepared   on   31.01.1997,   the   details   of which  were  furnished  under  the  RTI  Act.  Though  that  was  the position in the list finalised on 31.01.1997, the same had been set   aside   by   the   SAT   in   O.A.   No.2792(C)/1999   and   due   to   the orders   passed   therein,   subsequent   thereto   a   re­selection   list was   prepared.   In   the   said   process   the   marks   were   correctly assigned wherein the marks obtained by the respondent in the viva   voce  was   14.40  which  while   added  to   her   marks  obtained towards matriculation  of  44.42 marks  and 51.04 marks in  the competitive   test,   the   total   would   add   up   to   109.86   and   not 114.80 marks as claimed. Hence, it is contended that the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.  13. In   the   light   of   the   above,   the   only   question   for consideration   is   as   to   whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in taking   note   of   the   information   merely   because   it   was   secured under the RTI Act, to be the basis for its conclusion. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified and had fallen Page 9 of 11 into error. This is for the reason that the information furnished under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable. In   the   re­select   list,   the   name   of   the   respondent   is   shown   at Serial   No.474   having   obtained   109.86   marks.   The   marks awarded   by   the   three   Selection   Committee   members   in   the Viva­voce is shown as 16;20.20 and 7, the total of which to be divided   by   3   will   work   out   to   the   average   of   14.40   marks   in Viva­voce. The same if added to the career marks of 95.46, the total   would   be   109.86   marks   which   is   in   consonance   with   the stand taken and contention put forth by the appellants.  14.           Hence, all these aspects will reveal that, though it had been shown as 114.80 marks in the list which was finalised on 31.01.1997, when it is admitted that the said list had been set aside   by   the   SAT   accepting   the   allegations   of   the   applicants therein   that   the   list   had   not   been   appropriately   prepared, neither the respondent nor the High Court ought to have placed reliance on the same when the re­selection list prepared afresh Page 10 of 11 was acted upon for appointment.  15.      In that view, the order passed by the High Court cannot be   sustained.   The   orders   dated   20.03.2018   and   06.12.2018 passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Orissa   in   WP(C)   No.22713/2014 and in Review Petition No.230/2018 are set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.  16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.  ……………………….J. (M.R. SHAH)                                                      ……………………….J.                                                (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, September 27, 2021  Page 11 of 11