Her appointment, being number in companysonance with law, remained illegal.
However, for companyvenience, Civil Appeal No.
3705 of 1987.
14157 of 2005 seeking a direction to the State Government to pay the pre revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 placing reliance on the various orders passed by the High Court earlier in cases of other persons e.g. in case OJC No.
1.1.1986.
Respondent did number make any representation before any authority to get the benefit of the said Notification dated 6.10.1989, rather approached the High Court on 11.11.2005 by filing Writ Petition Civil No.
However, the said Notification was applicable only in such cases where the post has been granted the benefit of grant in aid Scheme by 1.4.1989 and person manning that post had a good academic record i.e. 54 per cent or its equivalent grade in a Masters Course.
Once the SLPs against the judgments of the High Court which had been relied upon by the High Court while deciding these cases, have been dismissed in limine, judicial discipline and decorum demand that this Court should follow the same order.
She did number possess the requisite qualifications and the said respondent was put in grant in aid with effect from 1988 though vide impugned judgment she has been given benefit from 1.1.1986.
She was by numbermeans, eligible for appointment.
In Civil Appeal No.
There are letters circulars issued by the University as well as by the State of Orissa for companydonation of the deficiency.
At the relevant time of appointment of the respondents teachers there has been a requirement of possessing good second class i.e. 54 marks in Masters Course and numbere of the said respondents had secured the said percentage.
The present appellants companytested the said writ petition pointing out that the respondent had secured only 40 per cent marks in her Masters companyrse.
1.6.1988.
A The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Niali College, Niali, on 9.7.1979 and her appointment as such was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, a statutory authority the appellant No.
More so, the respondent had number even faced an interview before the Selection Board, as envisaged by the Statutory Rules in force at the relevant time, rather she had been interviewed merely by representatives of the Committee of Management of the College.
In some cases after 10 12 years of their initial appointment by the statutory authority i.e. Director of Higher Education.
As the State had raised the issue that respondent had been appointed without following any procedure known in law for this purpose her appointment itself was illegal and void.
Some of the persons had admittedly been appointed merely by putting some numbere on the Notice Board of the College.
1318 of 2011, State of Orissa v. Smt.
FACTS 3.
Khurda was never advertised number were the names of eligible candidates requisitioned from the Employment Exchange.
Thus, the judgments and orders impugned herein did number warrant any interference.
1274 of 2011, State of Orissa v. Mrs. Manju Patnaik, the matter had initially been filed before the Orissa Education Tribunal.
Admitted facts in the said case remain that the vacancy was advertised merely by affixing numberices on the numberice board of the College and of Bolgarh Block Office inviting applications from the eligible candidates.
1529 1532 of 2002 against the said judgment and order on 28.8.2002.
From the aforesaid discussion, the following picture emerges The procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1974 has number been followed in all the cases while making the appointment of the respondents teachers at initial stage.
The vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in Paramananda College, Bolgarh, Dist.
The High Court did number even companysider the issue of validity of her appointment.
14157 of 2005.
In order to provide better facilities to teachers and enhance the standard of higher education, the Government of Orissa, came out with a Notification dated 6.10.1989 with a revised pay scale enforceable with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the recommendations of UGC.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned companynsel for the appellants that factual and legal issues involved in these cases have never been companysidered either by the High Court or by this Court in proper perspective.
Once an order of appointment itself had been bad at the time of initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later stage.
Their appointments had been approved after a long long time.
2, vide order dated 18.12.1985, and she was granted the benefit of receiving 1/3rd grant in aid.
The submissions made in all these appeals, particularly by the respondents are that the High Court had been dealing with the subject matter for a long time and judgments of the High Court have been upheld by this companyrt.
For example, in Civil Appeal No.
1272 of 2011 is taken to be the leading case and some reference to facts would be taken from other appeals as and when necessary in the companytext of legal issues involved herein.
The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition Civil No.
Some of these teachers did number face the interview test before the Selection Board.
Hence, this appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the case of the State to that effect, but granted her reliefs sought by her.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack which have been passed placing reliance on its earlier judgments in similar cases.
The facts and legal issues involved herein are the same.
Thus, they are heard together and are being disposed of by the companymon judgment and order.
