/2022 INSC 0322/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3036­3064  OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22987­
23015 of 2019]
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. ETC.ETC.     ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC.
ETC.       ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. The   appellants   –   State   of   Odisha   and   others   have
approached   this   Court,   being   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and
order   dated   20 th
  December,   2018,   delivered   by   the   Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in a batch of writ
1

petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6557 of 2018 along with
connected   matters,   thereby   dismissing   the   said   writ   petitions
filed by the appellants – State of Odisha and others, challenging
the   judgments   and   orders   delivered   by   the   Odisha
Administrative   Tribunal   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
Tribunal”),   Bhubaneswar   Bench,   Bhubaneswar/Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack dated 18 th
 May, 2017 in O.A. No. 2266 of 2015
along   with   connected   matters   and   30 th
  January,   2018   in   O.A.
No.3420 (C) of 2015 along with connected matters.  
3. Vide   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017,   delivered   in   O.A.
No.2266   of   2015   along   with   connected   matters,   the   Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench had allowed the Original Applications filed
by   the   applicants   therein   (respondents   herein),   thereby   setting
aside   the   termination   of   the   applicants   (respondents   herein)
and   directing/allowing   them   to   continue   as   Government
servant   as   third   teacher/Assistant   Teacher   in   Middle   English
Schools   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “M.E.   Schools”)   with   effect
2

from  1 st
  April, 2011, as  regular  teacher.   Vide order  dated 30 th
January, 2018, the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench followed its earlier
order dated 18 th
  May, 2017 and granted the same relief to 137
Hindi Teachers. 
4. The   parties   are   referred   herein   as   they   are   referred   to   in
the Original Applications.  
5. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
6. All   the   applicants   joined   the   Aided   M.E.   School   as   Hindi
Teachers,   in   or   around   1988­89.     The   applicant­Sulekh
Chandra   Pradhan   (respondent   No.1   herein)   in   the   lead   case
before the Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, i.e., O.A. No.2266 of
2015,   was   appointed   on   21 st
  June,   1988   and   joined   on   23 rd
June,  1988, as  Hindi  Teacher   at  Nrusingha  Jena   M.E.  School,
Naginipur in District Kendrapada.  The appointment of the said
applicant   was   made   by   the   Managing   Committee   of   the   said
School.  
3

7. On  12 th
  May, 1992, the  Government  of  Orissa, Education
Department   issued   a   resolution,   thereby   taking   over   all   M.E.
Schools   situated   in   the   State   of   Odisha   with   effect   from   1 st
April, 1991.  Though the Government took over all the teachers
including non­teaching staff of the M.E. School as Government
servants,   Hindi   Teachers   were   not   taken   over   as   Government
servants   and   therefore,   the   services   of   the   applicants   were
automatically terminated.  Aggrieved thereby, on 2 nd
 July, 1993,
Sulekh Chandra Pradhan (respondent No.1 herein), approached
the   High   Court   of   Orissa   at   Cuttack   by   way   of   Writ   Petition
being   OJC   No.   3042   of   1993,   thereby   raising   a   grievance   that
the benefits extended to Hindi Teachers in terms of the letter of
the   Deputy   Director,   Sanskrit,   Hindi   and   Special   Education
(hereinafter referred to as “the Deputy Director”) dated 1 st
  May,
1992   were   not   being   extended   to   him.     It   was   asserted   that
though   he   possessed   the   requisite   qualification,   he   was   not
being   absorbed   against   the   third   teacher   post   in   the   M.E.
School   where   he   was   earlier   working.     The   Division   Bench   of
4

the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 2 nd
  July, 1993,
disposed   of   the   said   writ   petition   by   directing   the   Director   of
Elementary   Education,   Orissa   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
Director”),   to   look   into   the   grievances   of   the   petitioner   therein
(i.e.   Sulekh   Chandra   Pradhan)   within   four   months   from   the
date of receipt of the order.  
8. On 7 th
  January, 1994, the Government of Orissa issued a
clarification   that   the   letter   dated   1 st
  May,   1992   of   the   Deputy
Director   addressed   to   all   Inspectors   of   Schools/all   District
Inspector   of   Schools,   was   applicable   only   to   the   teachers,   who
were   appointed   against   sanctioned   posts   and   were   drawing
their   salaries   from   the   Government   fund   under   Plan   and   non­
plan scheme.  By the said communication dated 1 st
 May, 1992,
the   Deputy   Director   had   clarified   that   Hindi   being   a   non­
examinable subject in M.E. Schools, there was no need to allow
the existing Hindi Teachers in M.E. Schools to continue further.
5

9. It   appears   that   in   pursuance   to   the   orders   of   the   High
Court,   the   Government   of   Orissa   addressed   a   letter   dated   29 th
September,   1995   to   the   Director,   thereby   informing   that   the
Government   had   decided   to   adjust   such   Hindi   Teachers
appointed   by   the   Managing   Committee   within   the   yardstick   in
UP   (ME)   Schools  as   Assistant   Teachers  in   the   taken  over  M.E.
Schools   either   in   vacant   posts   of   Assistant   Teacher   or   in   the
post of Hindi Teacher to be created in such schools or in other
schools   in   relaxation   of   the   qualifications,   prescribed   for   the
third   teachers.     Vide   the   said   communication   dated   29 th
September,   1995,   the   Director   was   asked   to   ascertain   the
names of the Hindi Teachers along with their qualification from
the concerned District Inspector of Schools.   In response to the
same,   the   Director   immediately   informed   the   Government   that
since   the   appointments   were   made   beyond   the   yardstick   and
against   the   provisions   of   Odisha   Education   (Recruitment   and
Conditions   of   Service   of   Teachers   and   Members   of   the   Staff   of
Aided   Educational   Institutions)   Rules,   1974   (hereinafter
6

referred   to   as   “the   said   Rules”),   the   reference   to   District
Inspector of Schools to furnish the names and qualifications of
such   Hindi   Teachers   would   lead   to   every   possibility   for
manipulation of the office records.  It was also pointed out that
such   an   exercise   may   enable   to   sponsor   names   of   Hindi
Teachers for  approval by  making  back­dated  appointments.   It
was   therefore   recommended   that   cases   of   only   such   Teachers
who had filed the writ application between 12 th
  May, 1992 and
12 th
  May,   1993,   i.e.,   within   a   year   after   taking   over   of   the
schools should be considered as one time measure.  
10. Vide   communication   dated   21 st
  May,   1996,   the
Government   of   Orissa   informed   the   Director   that   the
Government has decided to adjust 137 Hindi Teachers in M.E.
Schools.   It appears that vide communication dated 17 th
  June,
1996, the Government of Orissa also informed the Director that
while   examining   the   original   papers   of   Hindi   Teachers,   their
Acquaintance Roll should be verified by the District Inspector of
7

Schools.  It further appears that vide communication dated 21 st
August, 1996, the Government of Orissa informed the Director
that   no   action   be   taken   in   pursuance   to   its   earlier
letters/communications   dated   21 st
  May,   1996   and   17 th
  June,
1996, until further orders of the State Government.  
11. Ignoring   the   letter/communication   dated   21 st
  August,
1996,   the   respective   District   Inspector   of   Schools   issued
appointment   order   dated   27 th
  August,   1996   in   favour   of   the
applicant   –   respondent   No.   1   herein.     Noticing   this,   the
Directorate   of   Elementary   Education,   Orissa,   Bhubaneswar
addressed   a   communication/letter   dated   1 st
  October,   1996   to
the   District   Inspector   of   Schools   informing   that   all
appointments   made   by   them   should   be   kept   in   abeyance.     It
appears that  on  the  basis of  the said  communication  dated 1 st
October,   1996,   the   services   of   the   applicants/Hindi   Teachers
were discontinued with effect from 4 th
 November, 1996.   On 5 th
September,   1998,   the   Government   of   Orissa   addressed   a
8

communication   to   the   Director,   stating   therein   that   the
Government has  withdrawn its G.O. No.31360 SME dated 29 th
September, 1995.  
12. It is the contention of the State Government that the Joint
Secretary   to   the   Government   of   Orissa,   Department   of   School
and   Mass   Education   addressed   a   communication   dated   7 th
July, 2009 to the Director, stating therein that the Government
had   decided   to   adjust   the   services   of   137   Hindi   Teachers   in
M.E.   Schools   as   Assistant   Teachers   against   the   vacant   posts.
Vide   another   communication   dated   2 nd
  February,   2011,   the
office of the Director informed the District Inspectors of Schools
that   a   committee   constituted   and   headed   by   them   should
scrutinize   the   original   papers   of   Hindi   Teachers   and
acquaintance   roll   of   the   incumbents   should   be   verified   with
reference to the cash book of the School from the date of their
joining   before   the   adjustment   of   such   teachers.     In   pursuance
to   the   aforesaid   communication   dated   2 nd
  February,   2011,   the
9

applicants/respondents were appointed on 31 st
 March, 2011 as
Assistant Teachers.  
13. It   appears   that   certain   teachers   had   approached   the
Tribunal by filing  various applications, thereby  challenging  the
order   dated   1 st
  October,   1996   and   4 th
  November,   1996,   vide
which the appointment of teachers were kept in abeyance.  One
of such applications being O.A. No.4029(2) of 1996 came to be
rejected   by   the   Tribunal   by   order   dated   12 th
  April,   2012.     It
appears that one another application being O.A. No.3800 (C) of
2012 was filed by one Nimai Charan Dash, seeking a direction
to   quash   the   order   dated   21 st
  August,   2012   whereby   the
representation   of   the   applicant   therein   to   adjust   him   as   a
regular teacher came to be rejected.  The said application came
to be rejected by the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench vide order dated
23 rd
  September,   2013.       While   rejecting   the   said   O.A.   the
Tribunal,   Cuttack   Bench,   directed   a   detailed   enquiry   to   be
conducted through the Vigilance Department.  
10

14. In the enquiry, it was found that the letter dated 7 th
  July,
2009 of the Government of Orissa addressed to the Director to
adjust   137   Hindi   Teachers   as   Assistant   Teachers   against
vacant  posts  was issued by   suppressing   its earlier  letter  dated
5 th
  September,   1998,   whereby   the   letter   dated   29 th
  September,
1995   to   adjust   the   Hindi   Teachers   was   withdrawn.     The
Government   of   Orissa,   therefore,   vide   communication   dated
26 th
  February, 2014, directed the Director to remove 137 Hindi
Teachers, who were illegally adjusted by the concerned District
Inspector   of   Schools.     Accordingly,   the   services   of   the
applicants/Teachers   came   to   be   terminated   with   effect   from
15 th
 March, 2014.  
15. The   applicants,   being   aggrieved   by   their   termination
approached the High Court by way of Writ Petitions being Writ
Petition   (Civil)   No.6747   of   2014   and   other   writ   petitions.     The
High   Court   vide   order   dated   9 th
  May,   2014,   delivered   in   Writ
Petition (Civil) No.6747 of 2014, found that the termination was
11

done   without   following   the   principles   of   natural  justice   and  as
such,   set   aside   the   same.   However,   liberty   was   granted   to   the
State   to   proceed   against   the   petitioner   therein   (i.e.,   Ramesh
Kumar   Mohanty)   by   complying   with   the   Rules   governing   the
employment of the petitioner therein and the requirement of the
rule of natural justice.  The High Court further directed that the
services/appointments   of   such   of   the   teachers   would   be
continued  till the  decisions were taken  by   the authorities after
remand. 
16. In   pursuance   thereof,   the   applicants/teachers   were
reinstated   on   15 th
  December,   2014.     In   view   of   the   liberty
granted  by   the   High   Court,  show   cause  notices  were  issued  to
the applicants on 22 nd
 July, 2015.  Some of the applicants filed
their replies and appeared for personal hearing.   Many of them
chose  not   to   do   so.     The  services   of   the   applicants   came   to   be
terminated with effect from 22 nd
 August, 2015. Being aggrieved,
a   batch   of   Original   Applications   came   to   be   filed   before   the
12

Tribunal.     The   same   came   to   be   allowed   by   the   Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, vide order dated 18 th
  May, 2017, thereby
quashing   the   show   cause   notices   dated   22 nd
  July,   2015   and
holding that the applicants were entitled to continue as regular
Government   servants   as   third   teacher/Assistant   Teacher   in
M.E. School with effect from 1 st
 April, 2011. 
17. Vide   another   order   dated   30 th
  January,   2018,   the
Tribunal,   Cuttack   Bench,   followed   the   abovementioned   order
dated   18 th
  May,   2017,   passed   by   the   Tribunal,   Bhubaneswar
Bench and granted similar relief to 137 Hindi Teacher.  
18. Being   aggrieved   by   the   judgments   and   orders   dated   18 th
May, 2017 and 30 th
 January, 2018 of the Tribunal, the State of
Odisha   filed   writ   petitions   before   the   High   Court.   The   same
were dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20 th
December,   2018.   Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   present   appeals
by   way   of   special   leave   are   filed.     Vide   order   dated   20 th
13

September, 2019, this Court issued notice and granted stay to
the impugned judgment and order. 
19. We  have  heard   Shri  Chander   Uday   Singh,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants,   Shri   Gaurav
Agrawal,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents/teachers   and   Shri   R.   Balasubramanian,   learned
Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
Interveners/applicants.  
20. Shri   Chander   Uday   Singh,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   would   submit   that   the
High Court has grossly erred in holding that the State had not
challenged   the   judgment   and   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017,
passed by  the Tribunal,  Bhubaneswar  Bench,  in  O.A. No.2266
of   2015   and   other   connected   cases.   He   submitted   that,   as   a
matter   of   fact,   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.6557   of   2018   was   filed
challenging   the   judgment   and   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017,
passed   by   the   Tribunal   in   O.A.   No.2266   of   2015   and   other
14

connected cases.   He submitted that the High Court has erred
in   holding   that   the   teachers   had   discharged   service   under   the
State   Government   for   more   than   two   decades.   He   further
submitted   that   the   Division   Bench   of   High   Court   has   erred   in
holding that the State had meted out discriminatory treatment
amongst   the   teachers.     He   therefore   submits   that   the
judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the   Tribunal   as   well   as   the
High Court are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
21. Shri Singh further submitted that the appointments made
are contrary to Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules and as such, the
appointments   made,   de   hors   the   said   Rules,   cannot   be
sustained.     He   further   submitted   that   the   Tribunal,   while
delivering the judgments and orders dated 18 th
  May, 2017 and
30 th
  January,   2018,   has   failed   to   take   into   consideration   the
earlier   orders   of   the   Tribunal   dated   25 th
  June,   2013   and   23 rd
September, 2013, vide which the Tribunal had rejected similar
claims   made   by   the   Hindi   Teachers.     He   further   submits   that,
15

as a matter of fact, Sri Antaryami Bal, whose O.A. (No. 2270 of
2015)   has   been   allowed   by   the   Tribunal   vide   judgment   and
order dated 18 th
  May, 2017, was the applicant in O.A. No.4029
(2) of 1996, which was rejected by the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench
by  a well­reasoned judgment  and order  dated 12 th
  April, 2012 .
He   therefore   submits   that   the   judgments   and   orders   of   the
Tribunal,   which   were   impugned   before   the   High   Court,   would
also not be sustainable on the ground of judicial propriety. 
22. On   facts,   Shri   Singh   submitted   that   the
applicants/teachers   have   worked   only   between   27 th
    August,
1996   and   4 th
  November,1996;   between   31 st
  March,   2011   and
15 th
  March, 2014; and lastly from 15 th
  December, 2014 till 25 th
August,   2015.   The   third   period   was   on   account   of   the   orders
passed   by   the   High   Court.     He   therefore   submits   that,   at   the
most, the applicants/teachers have worked approximately for a
period of four years. 
16

23. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel, would submit that
though the M.E. Schools had a sanction of two posts, i.e., one
post   of   Headmaster   and   one   post   of   Assistant   Teacher;   the
posts   of   Hindi   Teacher   were   filled   in   by   the   Management   on
non­grant   basis.     He   submits   that   the   said   Rules   would   be
applicable only to the appointments made on grant­in­aid basis
and as such, to the post of Headmaster and to the one post of
Assistant   Teacher.     Since   the   applicants/teachers,   who   were
appointed on a third post, which was on non­grant basis, they
would not be governed by the said Rules.  
24. Shri   Agrawal   further   submits   that   in   pursuance   to   the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in O.J.C.
No. 3042 of 1993 dated 2 nd
  July, 1993, the State had framed a
policy   for  absorption  of  these  teachers as  a  one­time measure.
He   submits   that   prior   to   their   absorption,   a   detailed   scrutiny
and   enquiry   was   required   to   be   done.     He   submits   that   if
applicants/teachers  were absorbed in  pursuance  to  the  policy,
17

which   was   framed   in   pursuance   to   the   directions   of   the   High
Court,   the   termination   would   be   bad   in   law.   He   therefore
submits   that   no   interference   would   be   warranted   with   the
judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the   Tribunal   and   the   High
Court. 
25. Shri   R.   Balasubramanian,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing on behalf of the interveners/applicants would submit
that   similar   matters,   i.e.,   O.A.   No.   3420(C)   of   2015   and   other
connected matters have been allowed by the Tribunal vide order
dated   30 th
  January,   2018.   He   submits   that   the   order   of   the
Tribunal  was confirmed/affirmed by  the  High Court  vide order
dated   11 th
  April,   2018   passed   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.21661
of   2017.     He   submits   that   the   Special   Leave   Petition   (Civil)   D.
No.40252   of   2018   challenging   the   same   has   been   rejected   by
this   Court   vide   order   dated   19 th
  July,   2019.     He   therefore
submits   that   the   issue   has   reached   a   finality   and   therefore,   it
will   not   be   permissible   for   the   State   to   do   away   with   the
18

services of the Assistant Teachers. He further submits that the
applicants/interveners   in   the   present   appeals,   who   have
succeeded before the Tribunal, the High Court, and this Court
have not been reinstated.  
26. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be necessary
to refer to Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules, which read thus:
“5. Procedure of application to the Board and
appointment of Staff in aided institutions – 
(1) The   Secretary   of   the   Managing
Committee   or   the   Governing   Body,   as
the   case   may   be,   of   an   Aided
Educational   Institution   shall,   on   or
before   the   thirty­first   day   of   August
every year apply  to the Selection Board
with   copy   of   each   application   to   the
concerned   Inspector   of   Schools   in
respect   of   Schools   [Director   of   Higher
Education]   in   respect   of   Colleges   in
such   manner   as   the   Selection   Board
may   prescribe   for   selection   of   a
candidate   for   appointment   in   the
vacancy   or   vacancies   in   teaching   post,
and the concerned Inspector of Schools
and [Director of Higher Education] shall
process   the   applications   so   received
and  transmit the  same to the  Selection
Board   by   thirtieth   day   of   September
19

every   year   with   certificate   of
genuineness   of   the   vacancy   or
vacancies along with a statement of the
vacancy   position   in   the   Educational
Institutions within his jurisdiction.
(2) The Selection Board shall, on receipt of
applications   and   certificates   referred   to
in   Sub­rule   ()   recommend   a   list   of
candidates   in   order   of   merit   strictly
according   to   the   number   of   vacancies,
to   the   concerned   Directors   who   shall
thereupon,   allot   candidates   to   the
concerned   institutions   strictly   in   order
of merit as per vacancy.
(3) Appointment   shall   be   made   by   the
Managing   Committee   or   the   Governing
Body   as   the   case   may   be,   of   the
candidates allotted under Sub­rule (2).
(4) [***]
(5) In the extent of non­acceptance of offer
of   appointment   by   any   candidate,
report to that effect shall be sent to the
[Director concerned] by the Secretary of
the   Managing   Committee   or   the
Governing   Body,   as   the   case   may   be,
and   upon   receipt   of   such   intimation,
the   name   of   the   candidate   shall   be
struck   off   the   list.   The   consequential
vacancies   shall   then   be   filled   up   by
candidates   allotted   by   the   Director
concerned   from   an   additional   list
obtained from the Selection Board from
20

the   list   of   persons   in   the   waiting   list
with it.
(6) If   instance   of   default   in   the
appointment   of   candidates   allotted   by
the   Director,   come   to   his   notice,   he
shall   be   competent   to   withhold   the
individual teacher’s cost of the grant­in­
aid   to   be   paid   to   the   institution
concerned   and   to   take   steps   to
supersede   the   Managing   Committee   or
the   Governing   Body,   as   the   case   may
be, under Section 11 of the Act.
(7) Where   a   vacancy   was   not   foreseen   by
thirty­first   day   of   August   the   Secretary
of   the   Managing   Committee   or   the
Government Body, as the  case may  be,
shall   apply   to   the   Selection   Board
through the concerned Inspector or the
Director,   as   the   case   may   be,   for
allotment of candidates whereupon, the
Selection   Board   shall   recommend
candidates   out   of   the   waiting   list
maintained   by   it,   through   the
concerned Director.
(8) It shall not be necessary to apply to the
Selection   Board   for   appointments   to
vacancies [for a period of six months or
till the date of receipt of the list referred
to   in   Sub­rule   (2)   from   the   Selection
Board whichever is earlier] and all such
appointments   may   be   made   by   the
Managing   Committee   or   the
Government Body, as the  case may  be,
21

with the prior approval of the Inspector
in respect of an Institution other than a
College and of the Director in respect of
a College.
[Provided   that   where   it   appears   to   the
Inspector   or   the   Director,   as   the   case
may   be,   that   the   appointment   to   a
vacancy   or   vacancies   in   accordance
with the provisions of this rule is being
circumvented   by   making   appointments
in   pursuance   to   this   Sub­rule,   the
Director suo motu or on the receipt of a
report   from   the   Inspector   as   the   case
may   be,   shall   be   competent   to   proceed
against the Managing Committee or the
Governing Body under Section 11 of the
Act.]
(9) Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
Sub­rule   (8),   it   shall   be   competent   for
the   Managing   Committee   or   the
Governing  Bode, as the case may be to
extend in terms of appointment beyond
six   months   till   the   recommendation   of
the Selection Board is received with the
prior approval of Government.
6. Procedure of selection of candidates –
(1)   The   Selection   Board   shall,   at   such
intervals   as   it   deems   proper   call   for
applications for various posts in respect
of which vacancies are likely to arise in
the course of the next one year in such
manner   as   may   be   determined   in   the
regulation of the Selection Board.
22

(2)   The   Selection   Board   shall   conduct
examinations   including   a   viva   voce
examination   of   any   candidate   or   all
candidates   with   a   view   to   determine
their merit and suitability in the matter
appointed in its regulations.”
27. Perusal   of   the   sub­rule   (1)   of   Rule   5   of   the   said   Rules
would   show   that   the   Secretary   of   the   Managing   Committee   or
the   Governing   Body,   as   the   case   may   be,   of   an   Aided
Educational   Institution,   is   required   to   apply   to   the   Selection
Board on or before the thirty­first day of August every year with
copy  of each application  to the concerned Inspector  of  Schools
and   Director   of   Higher   Education.     The   Inspector   of   Schools
and   the   Director   of   Higher   Education   are   required   to   process
the   applications   so   received   and   transmit   the   same   to   the
Selection   Board   by   thirtieth   day   of   September   every   year   with
certificate of genuineness of the vacancy/vacancies.   Perusal of
sub­rule   (2)   of   Rule   5   of   the   said   Rules   would   show   that   the
Selection Board shall recommend a list of candidates in order of
merit   strictly   according   to   the   number   of   vacancies   to   the
23

concerned   Directors,   who   shall   thereupon   allot   candidates   to
the   concerned   institutions   strictly   in   order   of   merit   as   per
vacancy. 
28. Perusal   of   sub­rule   (6)   of   Rule   5   of   the   said   Rules   would
reveal that if the Management defaults in making appointment
of candidates allotted by the Director, he shall be competent to
withhold   the   individual   teacher’s   cost   of   the   grant­in­aid   to   be
paid   to   the   institution   concerned.     He   is   also   entitled   to   take
steps   to   supersede   the   Managing   Committee   or   the   Governing
Body, as the case may be.   Under sub­rule (8) of Rule 5 of the
said Rules, the relaxation is granted for filling up the vacancies
for a period of six months or till the date of receipt of the list as
referred to in sub­rule (2) of Rule 5 of the said Rules.  However,
the   same   has   to  be  with   the  prior   approval   of   the   Inspector  in
respect   of   an   institution   other   than   a   College   and   of   the
Director in respect of a College.
24

29. Rule   6   of   the   said   Rules   prescribes   the   procedure   for
selection of candidates.  
30. It   could   thus   be   clearly   seen   that   a   detailed   selection
procedure   is   prescribed   for   making   appointment   of   vacancies
arising in Aided Educational Institution.  
31. Perusal of the approval order dated 12 th
  September, 1980
of   the   Government   of   Orissa,   Education   and   Youth   Service
Department,   would   reveal   that   for   each   M.E.   School,   only   two
posts, i.e., one post of a Trained Graduate Headmaster and one
post   of   a   Trained   Matric   Teacher,   have   been   sanctioned.     The
order   clearly   provides   that   no   other   post   of   teaching   and   non­
teaching staff would be permitted.  
32. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   appointment   of   all   the
applicants/respondents/teachers   have   been   made   directly   by
the   respective  Management   without  following   the  procedure  as
prescribed   under   the   Rules/Statute.   It   is   a   trite   law   that   the
appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions
25

are   void   ab   initio.     Reference   in   this   respect   could   be   made   to
the   judgments   of   this   Court   in   the   cases   of   Ayurvidya
Prasarak   Mandal   and   another   vs.   Geeta   Bhaskar   Pendse
(Mrs)   and   others 1
,   J   &   K   Public   Service   Commission   and
others   vs.   Dr.   Narinder   Mohan   and   others 2
,   Official
Liquidator   vs.   Dayanand   and   others 3
,   and   Union   of   India
and another vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh 4
.  
33. We   are   unable   to   accept   the   contention   raised   by   Shri
Gaurav   Agrawal   and   Shri   R.   Balasubramanian   that   since   the
applicants/teachers were appointed on posts which were not on
grant­in­aid basis, the said Rules are not applicable.   The said
Rules   would   clearly   show   that   they   are   applicable   to   Aided
Educational   Institution.     Undisputedly,   the   institutions   in
which the applicants/teachers were appointed, were recognized
as Aided M.E. Schools vide G.O. dated 12 th
 September, 1980.  It
1   (1991) 3 SCC 246
2   (1994) 2 SCC 630
3   (2008) 10 SCC 1
4   (2018) 15 SCC 463
26

is   also   not   in   dispute   that   the   appointments   so   made   were
subsequent   to   the   schools   being   recognized   as   Aided   Schools.
As such, the contention in that regard deserves to be rejected. 
34. We   further   find   that   the   Tribunal,   while   delivering   the
judgment   and   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017   and   30 th
  January,
2018,   has   failed   to   take   into   consideration   the   earlier   orders
dated   25 th
  June,   2013   and   23 rd
  September,   2013   delivered   by
the   same   Tribunal.     In   the   said   orders   of   2013,   the   Tribunal
had elaborately considered the provisions of the said Rules and
found   no   merit   in   the   contentions   raised   on   behalf   of   the
applicants therein. The orders passed by the Tribunal ignoring
its   earlier   orders,   which   were   passed   elaborately   considering
the   scheme   of   the   said   Rules,   are   totally   contrary   to   the   well­
established norms of judicial propriety.   The situation becomes
graver, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has allowed O.A. No.2270 OF
2015   by   its   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017   filed   by   Sri   Antaryami
Bal,   whose   earlier   application   being   O.A.   No.   4029(2)   of   1996
27

with regard to the same relief was rejected by the Tribunal vide
its   earlier   order   dated   12 th
  April,   2012.   The   orders   passed   by
the Tribunal are, therefore, totally unsustainable in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of   Official Liquidator
vs. Dayanand and others  (supra).   Not only this, the Tribunal
as well as the High Court has failed to  take into  consideration
the  order  passed by  this Court on  2 nd
  December, 1996 in Civil
Appeal No. 15712 of 1996 5
.
35. The   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   depicts
total   non­application   of   mind.     Whereas   the   cause   title   would
itself   show   that   a   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.6557   of   2018   is
disposed   of   by   the   impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court
observed   that   the   order   dated   18 th
  May,   2017,   passed   by   the
Tribunal  in O.A.  No.2266 of  2015, has  not  been challenged  by
the   State.     Whereas   the   teachers   have   hardly   worked   for   four
years   and   a   substantial   part   thereof   on   account   of   interim
orders   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the   High   Court   goes   on   to
5   (1997) 2 SCC 635
28

observe that the teachers have worked for a period of more than
20 years.   No reasons, leave aside sound reasons, are reflected
in   the  impugned  order  while  dismissing  the  writ  petitions  filed
by the State.   
36. That   leaves   us   with   the   submission   of   Shri   R.
Balasubramanian,   learned   Senior   Counsel   that   since   the   view
taken by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court and
the   Special   Leave   Petition   challenging   the   same   has   been
dismissed,   the   view   of   the   Tribunal   has   become   final.     In   this
respect, reliance could be placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of  Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala
and another 6
,  wherein this Court has held as under:
“ 27.   A   petition   for   leave   to   appeal   to   this
Court   may   be   dismissed   by   a   non­speaking
order   or   by   a   speaking   order.   Whatever   be
the phraseology employed in the order of
dismissal,   if   it   is   a   non­speaking   order,
i.e.,   it   does   not   assign   reasons   for
dismissing   the   special   leave   petition,   it
would   neither   attract   the   doctrine   of
6   (2000) 6 SCC 359
29

merger   so   as   to   stand   substituted   in
place   of   the   order   put   in   issue   before   it
nor   would   it   be   a   declaration   of   law   by
the   Supreme   Court   under   Article   141   of
the   Constitution   for   there   is   no   law
which   has   been   declared .   If   the   order   of
dismissal be supported by reasons then also
the doctrine of merger would not be attracted
because   the   jurisdiction   exercised   was   not
an   appellate   jurisdiction   but   merely   a
discretionary   jurisdiction   refusing   to   grant
leave   to   appeal.   We   have   already   dealt   with
this aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated by
the   Court   would   attract   applicability   of
Article   141   of   the   Constitution   if   there   is   a
law   declared   by   the   Supreme   Court   which
obviously would be binding on all the courts
and   tribunals   in   India   and   certainly   the
parties   thereto.   The   statement   contained   in
the   order   other   than   on   points   of   law   would
be   binding   on   the   parties   and   the   court   or
tribunal,   whose   order   was   under   challenge
on   the   principle   of   judicial   discipline,   this
Court   being   the   Apex   Court   of   the   country.
No   court   or   tribunal   or   parties   would   have
the   liberty   of   taking   or   canvassing   any   view
contrary to the one expressed by this Court.
The   order   of   Supreme   Court   would   mean
that it has declared the law and in that light
the   case   was   considered   not   fit   for   grant   of
leave. The declaration of law will be governed
by   Article   141   but   still,   the   case   not   being
30

one where leave was granted, the doctrine of
merger does not apply. The Court sometimes
leaves   the   question   of   law   open.   Or   it
sometimes   briefly   lays   down   the   principle,
may be, contrary to the one laid down by the
High   Court   and   yet   would   dismiss   the
special   leave   petition.   The   reasons   given   are
intended for  purposes  of  Article  141.  This  is
so   done   because   in   the   event   of   merely
dismissing   the   special   leave   petition,   it   is
likely   that   an   argument   could   be   advanced
in   the   High   Court   that   the   Supreme   Court
has to be understood as not to have differed
in law with the High Court.”
[emphasis supplied]
37. It is thus clear that a mere dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition   would   not   mean   that   the   view   of   the   High   Court   has
been   approved   by  this   Court.     As   such,   the   contention   in   that
regard is rejected. 
38. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Tribunal
has   erred   in   allowing   the   Original   Applications   of   the
applicants/teachers.     Similarly,   the   High   Court   has   also   erred
in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants. 
31

39. In   the   result,   the   appeals   are   allowed.     The   impugned
judgment   and   order   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
dated   20 th
  December,   2018   passed   in   a   batch   of   writ   petitions
and   the   judgments   and   orders   dated   18 th
  May,   2017   and   30 th
January,   2018   of   the   Tribunal   passed   in   a   batch   of   Original
Applications   are   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   Original
Applications   filed   by   the   respondents/applicants   before   the
Tribunal are dismissed.  
40. All   pending   applications,   including   applications   for
intervention, shall stand disposed of.     There shall be no order
as to costs. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
         …….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 20, 2022
32