Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 708 (ORI)

Dinabandhu Sarangi v. State of Orissa

2007-09-12

I.M.QUDDUSI, N.PRUSTY

body2007
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : By means of this writ petition the peti¬tioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 7.11.1998 in O.A.No. 609 of 1994 and dated 19.10.2001 in O.A.No. 3158 (C) of 2001. 2. Original Application No. 609 of 1994 was filed by a teacher in LSES cadre claiming that he is trained graduate and respondent Nos. 5 to 10 who entered into service much after his joining in the same education district were selected for promotion as Headmaster of UGME Schools on the ground that they acquired B.Ed. qualification before him and in pursuance of the resolution of the District Selection Committee that those respondents shall be considered for promotion alongwith other similarly placed teachers, taking into account the dates of their acquiring B.Ed. qualification which was contrary to the Government resolution dated 2.12.1991, according to which the list of Trained Graduate Teachers in LSES cadre was to be ar¬ranged Revenue district-wise and the gradation list was to be prepared on the basis of the dates of their appointment for the purpose of promotion to posts of Headmaster in Government M.E.Schools and UGME schools. He had approached the Tribunal for a direction to follow the instruction contained in Annexure-III to the Original Application and to quash the resolution of the District Selection Committee. 3. Earlier a Larger Bench (Three Member Bench) of the Tribunal had taken a decision in Original Application No. 1443 of 1990 that acquisition of prescribed qualification, i.e. B.Ed. is the only relevant consideration for the purpose of determining seniority amongst teachers belonging to the Lower Subordinate Education Service for promotion to the cadre of Junior Subordinate Education Service. The whole length of service in the Lower Subordinate Education Service cadre will be relevant only in a case where two persons belonging to L.S.E.S.acquired the B.Ed. qualification on the same date. However, another Three Member Bench of the Tribunal by the impugned order reversed the earlier judgment in O.A.No. 1443 of 1993 and held that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Headmasters in Government M.E.Schools and UGME Schools, the seniority of Teachers in the feeder cadre shall be counted from the dates of their appoint¬ments and not from the date of acquiring B.Ed. qualification. The Hon’ble apex Court in S.I.Rooplal v. Lt. qualification. The Hon’ble apex Court in S.I.Rooplal v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi (2000 AIR SCW 19) held as follows : “At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle, which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to publish confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again prece¬dent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior Courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.” Following the aforesaid decision, similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. A.P.Jaiswal and others, AIR 2001 SC 499 while considering a similar decision of the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent Three Member Bench of the Tribunal could not have reversed the earlier decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench. If it did not agree with the view taken by earlier Bench, it could have referred the matter to a larger Bench for decision. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent Three Member Bench of the Tribunal could not have reversed the earlier decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench. If it did not agree with the view taken by earlier Bench, it could have referred the matter to a larger Bench for decision. Further the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is based on consideration of the resolution of the District Selection Committee whereas there was a resolution of the Government of Orissa in the Department of School & Mass Education issued vide No. 1425/SME dated Bhubaneswar the 8th June, 96 which reads as follows : “The question of determining the norms for preparation of gradation list for promotion to the post of Headmasters of M.E. (U.P.) Schools was engaging the attention of the Government from sometime past. In view of the judgment of the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, in O.A.T.No. 1443/90 - Pratap Chandra Mohanty vrs. State and others, the State Government have been pleased to modify Sub Para (i) of para 3 of the Resolution of the erstwhile Education Department bearing No. 54879/E dt. 2.12.91 to the effect that the last sentence of the said Sub-Para may be read as follows : “The gradation list will be prepared on the basis of the date of passing the B.Ed. Examination. There a person has entered into service after acquiring B.Ed.qualification, taken the date of his/her joining in service shall be the basis of fixing his/her seniority for promotion where two or more persons acquire the B.Ed. qualification on a same date, then the length of serv¬ice of those teachers should be taken into account for preparing the gradation list.” The resolution will come into force with immediate effect and action be taken accordingly. ORDER : Ordered that the Resolution be published in the next issue of the Orissa Gazette and copies be circulated to all concerned. BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR D.N.Padhi COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” 4. The above quoted resolution has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding Original Application No. 609 of 1994. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal without express¬ing any opinion on merits and remit the matter to the Tribunal for taking fresh decision on merits. The above quoted resolution has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding Original Application No. 609 of 1994. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal without express¬ing any opinion on merits and remit the matter to the Tribunal for taking fresh decision on merits. For that purpose, it will be open for the learned Chairman of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench i.e. more than Three Member Bench in case he desires to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 7.11.1998. Needless to mention that the matter shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is allowed in part to the above extent. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed in part.