2011 (2) TMI 1371 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether University means all the four universities of Orissa, not only Utkal University at Bhubneshwar? Whether the respondent herein had been appointed by following the procedure prescribed by the law for making the appointment? Whether UGC pay scale could be given prior to the date of according grant-in-aid benefits?

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of teachers for appointment and grant-in-aid.
2. Validity of appointments without following proper procedure.
3. Delay and laches in filing writ petitions.
4. Application of Article 14 regarding equality and perpetuation of illegality.
5. Power of relaxation of qualifications by Utkal University.
6. Grant of UGC pay scales to ineligible teachers.
7. Arbitrariness in government orders and circulars.
8. Doctrine of per incuriam.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Teachers for Appointment and Grant-in-Aid:
The Supreme Court emphasized that teachers must possess a good academic record with at least 54% marks in their Master's course to be eligible for appointment and grant-in-aid. This requirement is based on various government resolutions and university regulations. The court noted that many respondents did not meet this eligibility criterion at the time of their appointment, rendering their appointments illegal.

2. Validity of Appointments without Following Proper Procedure:
The court highlighted that appointments must follow the procedure prescribed under the Orissa Education Rules, 1974, which includes advertising vacancies and conducting interviews by a Selection Board. Many appointments in the cases under consideration were made without following these procedures, such as merely putting notes on notice boards and not conducting proper interviews. Such appointments were deemed invalid from the outset.

3. Delay and Laches in Filing Writ Petitions:
The court noted that many writ petitions were filed after significant delays (10-20 years) without any explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that such delays could not be condoned and that relief should not be granted for the initial period of inordinate delay. The principle of public policy underlying the Limitation Act applies to writ jurisdiction, and petitions should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

4. Application of Article 14 Regarding Equality and Perpetuation of Illegality:
The court reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution does not perpetuate illegality or negative equality. Even if some similarly situated persons were granted benefits inadvertently, it does not confer a legal right on others to claim the same benefit. The court must rectify mistakes rather than perpetuate them.

5. Power of Relaxation of Qualifications by Utkal University:
The court found that Utkal University's power to condone deficiencies in qualifications was not supported by statutory provisions. The university's orders condoning deficiencies were deemed null and void. The court emphasized that the power to relax qualifications must be clearly spelled out in the statute and exercised reasonably.

6. Grant of UGC Pay Scales to Ineligible Teachers:
The court held that teachers who did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of their appointment could not be granted UGC pay scales. Such benefits could only be given from the date the teachers acquired the necessary qualifications, such as M.Phil or Ph.D. The court directed that UGC pay scales should not be granted prior to the date of acquiring the required qualifications.

7. Arbitrariness in Government Orders and Circulars:
The court criticized the arbitrary actions of the state authorities in granting approvals and benefits without adhering to statutory provisions. Such actions were found to violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that every action of the state must be fair, legitimate, and above-board, without any bias or favoritism.

8. Doctrine of Per Incuriam:
The court clarified that judgments rendered in ignorance of a statute or binding authority do not have the sway of binding precedents. The court held that earlier judgments relied upon by the respondents were per incuriam as they did not consider the relevant statutory provisions and binding authorities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that teachers appointed without the requisite qualifications and without following the proper procedure could not claim the benefits of the grant-in-aid scheme or UGC pay scales. The court directed the state authorities to examine individual cases and grant benefits only from the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications. The court also emphasized the need for maintaining high academic standards and procedural fairness in appointments to ensure the quality of education.

← Previous Next →